Advantages of a registered trademark

Is there any advantage to owning a trademark registration? What steps and costs are involved?
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office defines a trademark as “a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.”
One obvious item to trademark is a logo. Once used in connection with a product, a logo can be registered as a trademark. The patent office reviews trademark applications for federal registration. Trademark registration is not required to use a mark to identify the source of goods and/or services. The TM (trademark) designation may be used to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed a trademark application. However, the federal registration symbol ® may be used only after the patent office registers a trademark.
While business owners historically retained attorneys to register trademarks, it is not uncommon today to navigate the process without attorney assistance through the Internet. Filing fees vary. More information is at www.uspto.gov.
Federal registration affords additional rights once the trademark is used in commerce. Such rights include:
•Constructive notice to the public of the registrant’s claim of trademark ownership.
•Legal presumption of the registrant’s ownership of the mark and exclusive right to use the mark in connection with the listed goods and/or services.
•The ability to bring a legal action concerning the mark.
•Use of the U.S. registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries and to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods.
Once a registration issues, it is up to the trademark owner to enforce its rights. Enforcement of intellectual property rights is a complex area of the law, and pursuing trademark infringement can be costly.
So why go to the effort and expense of registering a trademark? Many people believe that the registration itself serves as a deterrent and consequently helps to secure use for the rightful owner. Additionally, registered trademarks are often referred to as hidden assets, which can add value to a business.

SUGAR NO. 11 Not Merely Descriptive of Financial Services

In In re ICE Futures U.S., Inc., Serial Nos. 78199832, 78199843, and 78199848 (January 16, 2008), the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board reversed refusals to register the marks SUGAR NO. 1 1 , SUGAR NO. 14, and COTTON NO. 2, finding the marks not merely descriptive of "financial services, namely, futures exchange and related commodity trading services."

According to the TTAB:
While the full marks identify contracts with detailed, uniform terms, the record establishes that applicant created those terms for its exclusive use in the rendering of its services, that is, in the operation of a futures exchange.In fact, the evidence of third-party references to SUGAR NO. 11, SUGAR NO. 14 or COTTON NO. 2 in varying forms shows a consistent, explicit association of the marks with applicant, usually referred to as “NYBOT,” a reference to the New York Board of Trade, the predecessor owner. These references are drawn from reports of quotations and discussions regarding applicant and its activities. . . .Accordingly, based on the evidence of record we conclude that SUGAR NO. 11,SUGAR NO. 14 and COTTON NO. 2, when viewed in their entireties and in the fullcontext of their use, are not merely descriptive of applicant’s services. The marks, when viewed in their entireties, are arbitrary. They do not identify a commodity applicant sells, as the Examining Attorney argues. Furthermore, there is no evidence that others have a need to use these terms in rendering the identified services, as the Examining Attorney argues. We find applicant’s long, and apparently exclusive, use of the marks persuasive evidence of the absence of such a need -- for over sixty-five years in the case of the SUGAR NO. 11 and SUGAR NO. 14 marks and one hundred and thirty-five years in the case of the COTTON NO. 2 mark. The record does show that others can and do use the terms/marks to refer to applicant’s specific services. This use in no way indicates that the marks are merely descriptive of the identifiedservices."

Wow, was the Board determined to rule in favor of Applicant, or what? Apparently if one uses a term long enough, and exclusively, the requirements for proper specimens of use go out the window," writes John Welch.As noted in his TTABlog, the Board also reversed the PTO's refusal of registration based on the ground that Applicant's specimens fail to show use of each mark in connection with the identified services. "How in the heck are Applicant's specimens of use proper for its services? The specimens refer to the contracts and the terms. Is a contract a service? I just don't see it. "

Plager on the Importance of the Federal Circuit for Patent Cases

In "Rethinking Patent Law's Uniformity Principle: A Response To Nard and Duffey," Federal Senior Circuit Judge S. Jay Plager & his law clerk note "several respects in which [they] believe the case for overturning Congress’s decision to have one court rather than many deal with patent cases falls short of persuading:"

If we were writing on a clean slate, with no prior history and no established institutions for deciding patent law issues, the question whether there should be a single court that hears all patent cases or whether that assignment should be decentralized would be a topic worthy of careful and thoughtful consideration. In theAmerican judicial system, that consideration occurred and led Congress to enact the 1982 Act that created the Federal Circuit. Though it is true that we should not be wedded to a conclusion that no longer works, those who claim change is needed bear a heavy burden to prove it.

In our view, Professors Nard and Duffy have not been able to meet that burdenwith adequate proof. There is nothing to show that recreating the potentialfor forum-shopping by litigants, and reopening the disagreement among theseveral circuits as to whether patents are good or bad as national policy, will produce better decisions than we currently get. There is no showing that the process of airing diverse views and exposing alternative approaches would be carried forward more thoughtfully and to better purpose in a milieu of multiple courts and thirty or forty judges than it currently is with one court with sixteen judges who regularly publishconcurrences and dissents, sometimes more than some observers might think desirable. This is especially so when we consider the advantages that judges who regularly see a broad cross-section of patent cases have compared to those who see only an occasional case in the field.Senior Judge Plager also discusses the consequences of the visibility, significance and impact of the court in an earlier article titled "The Price of Popularity: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007."