Do U.S. Trademark Workplace Rulings Give Early Perception Into Attainable New Names for Cleveland Indians?


click to enlarge

  • Ben Peters’ Cleveland Spiders concept was entered in the Scene Redesign the Tribe competition

Recent U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rulings might at first glance suggest names that may be considered by the Cleveland Major League Baseball franchise to replace the Native American nickname, but experts say don’t read too much in the early action.

When Cleveland announced last year that it was seriously evaluating the organization’s troubled name, it hoisted the green flag on a number of land grabs Trademark registrations made by hopeful speculators on everything from the Cleveland Spiders to the Cleveland Tribe and in between. Essentially, long-shot lottery tickets worth $ 225 would be bought in the hopes that the Trademark Office would approve the application, and the Dolans, who had settled on that particular decision, would call with a lucrative offer to acquire the rights .

It is worthwhile to summarize this long process again here.

It initially includes a review by the USPTO that takes an average of three to four months. Should it give initial approval, next comes a 30-day public objection period during which people (e.g., an MLB franchise) can file competing claims. Before, during, and after the USPTO, the applicant searches for the name or phrase for an actual purpose – goods, for example – to show that you are not just sitting on an idea.

That brings us to this week’s news, or “news”.

The The USPTO granted the Indians an extension to raise objections on requests for Cleveland Guardians, Cleveland Warriors, Cleveland Natives, and Cleveland Foresters.

Does that mean they are interested in using one of these four options?

Maybe, but maybe not.

“If I was speculating, I would guess the baseball team refused on the grounds that the filers have no serious intention of using the trademark in the stream of trade – trademark protection is a creature of the Lanham Act Andrew Geronimo, director of the First Amendment Clinic at Case Western Reserve University Law School, told Scene that this is essentially a consumer protection act, so you can only protect a brand if it is tied to trade. “If the team thinks the If people have not properly registered these brands – that is, with the intention of profiting from the sale of the brands, rather than associating them with goods in the flow of trade – then it is likely that these people will not be willing to do so, potentially lengthier and more expensive Battle of the brand opposition that would allow them to rid the decks of potential new names. ”

More likely than seriously considering the Guardians or Warriors, the team could simply object to any applications for a baseball team in Cleveland while going through the complex process of renaming a franchise.

“The team’s request for an extension of the deadline to oppose these brands is a fairly routine matter at the USPTO, which could simply mean that the team is considering its options regarding these potential names. The team may be trying to work with Negotiate these applicants or otherwise convince them to drop their files, “said Geronimo. “If you read the tea leaves after the new team name, that’s a clue, but not a very good one – a better clue would be the foundation of the opposition if the team ever files one.”

Meanwhile, in separate but related messages, the office officially denied a request from Arlen Love to Cleveland Spiders, a West Coast Indian fan who was among the first to file documents last year, and the Scene said, “Me saw that he is available. ” and I thought it would be cool to go back to the original team, a shout back in time, and I thought I will do that and bring it to life. And if they do or not [go with Spiders]I can still make goods later. ”

He can make goods, he just can’t have an official brand for that USTPO said in a preliminary rulingand states that the Spiders moniker is best understood as a reference to the late late 19th-century Cleveland baseball team and that Love’s application did not argue that it had a unique claim to the name, which at the time was “informative “is.