iKiosks & iKiosk

[laskos]

Hi.

I have recently registered iKiosks.net & iKiosks.co.uk but have been told that iKiosk is TM will this affect me, and if so what advice would anyone give me.

Thanks in advance

Laskos

 

[JoDomains]

yes, iPrint, Inc own the trademark iKiosk (SN: 75579374) in the United States and the trademark iKiosk (SN: E1406289) in UK , so you can't use both of the domains.

Good luck

 

[laskos]

so what advice would anyone give me then, as in the best thing to do now with them

Laskos

 

[jberryhill]

My best advice would be that you don't take advice from strangers, and this thread is a classic example.

If you bother to look up that record in the USPTO database, you will find that the mark is NOT registered on the Principal Register, but is merely a supplemenal registration.

A supplemental registration is a proposed mark that has been determined by the USPTO to be non-registrable, because it is descriptive. Now, descriptive terms are capable of acquiring distinctiveness through several years of continuous exclusive use, but supplemental registrations have repeatedly (yes, there are always some exceptions) been held to be an inadequate showing of rights for UDRP purposes.

So, the question is, have these holders of the supplemental registration been making continuous exclusive use in a manner which is distintive to their claimed goods and services? Google supplies a very ready answer to that question.

The repeated failure of others to obtain registration for IKIOSK on the Principal Register, also provides some useful information.

75579374 2462934 IKIOSK TARR LIVE - that's the Supplemental, but all of these went abandoned....

75625153 IKIOSK DEAD
75556965 IKIOSK DEAD
75159559 IKIOSK DEAD

There is a wealth of developing precedent on "i" and "e" prefaced generic terms, which demonstrates that the USPTO and others are catching on the the fact that "i" and "e" are normally understood to simply indicate "interactive" or "internet" or "electronic" in conjunction with the following word, and the USPTO has been regularly refusing such applications.

Now, the other point is, your "location" is the UK, so all of this information may or may not be useful to you. Be that as it may, the comment by Lwgik above is outstandingly misleading.

Standard sermon #27 - there are lots of things in the USPTO database - some are trademarks and some are not. Relying on things people say in these forums about things they find in the USPTO database is an exercise in getting what you pay for.

 

[laskos]

phew.....

way over my head that m8

...so final conclusion is..i am safe ? and can i re sell it on ?

and thank you so much for that...best post i have seen on here i can tell you

Laskos

 

[laskos]

may i have permission to post your reply on other boards i have asked the same question.

Laskos

 

[actnow]

Laskos,

I believe in sharing information. But, wouldn't it be more correct to only list a link?

Assuming John wants his opinion passed on.

 

[laskos]

yes i will post a link not the full thing as his reply is excellent and dnforum is excellent for suplying me the help so if i get permissopm the link will go not the post.

thanks

Laskos

 

[jberryhill]

1. My opinion relates to the information content of a previous answer. I have not rendered an opinion on the original poster's question.

2. I would prefer that things I post here not be copied elsewhere, as there may be context lost.


"so final conclusion is..i am safe ?"

The observation, as distinct from a conclusion, is that things are not always as simple or cut-and-dried as one might like them to be. "Safe" is a relative word. Safe from what? Well, we know that there is one party who has attempted to claim a trademark in the term for certain goods and services. Can we predict what that party might do? No.

We also know that there is evidence that others use the term as a generic indication for "interactive kiosk" as, for example, here:

http://www.touchscreen.com.hk/kioskinf.htm

So, what does this mean? That might depend on where you are, and on where they are, and what, if anything, they decide to do. In the context of the UDRP, as mentioned above, there are cases which recognize the inherent weakness of Supplemental registrations, and it does not appear from Google that any one party is distinctively associated with the term. It further appears there are parties who use the term as a generic term for interactive kiosks.

What these things do is to provide you with an argument. These facts do not magically ward off evil, nor do they render you "safe" from having to defend yourself, if these people decide to take some sort of action.

In order to be "safe" in some absolute sense, what you need to do is to delete all of your domain name registrations, obtain a large supply of non-perishable food and water, and hide away in an underground bunker in the wilderness for the rest of your life. If that does not appeal to you, then you have to live your life in such as way that you see things in terms of balancing risk and benefit, rather than viewing the world in terms of "safe" and "not safe".

 

[laskos]

thank you for you advice, i will not post this anywhere. I will just have to live live as it comes then

thanks again. and keep up the good work.

Laskos

 

[JoDomains]

I'm sorry guys. I was trying to help. I did a search on USPTO and found a live registration. I didn't know about the Supplemental thing. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone into anything. I was simply trying to help. Forgive me guys

 

[laskos]

hey no probs mate, at least you try and thats the main thing.

no worries, i just want to get rid of them now hehhe

Laskos