BS: travelzoo trademarks 'Supersearch'

Subject: BS: travelzoo trademarks 'Supersearch'
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 12:21 PM

hah! Travelzoo has instituted a new feature called 'Supersearch' - and they have Trademarked the term.

I'm surprised they were allowed to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: travelzoo trademarks 'Supersearch'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 01:41 PM

As I understand it, the Patent and Trademark Office does not police the applicability of trademarks when they are registered. You declare what you want to as your claimed trademark, and then so it's published to the world and you have to police it yourself. Or others can attack it, which (I may be wrong here) is done by either using the trademark until the claimed trademark holder sues, or by suing for a declaratory judgment that the trademark is not good, for one or more of various reasons.

As I recall from my days with the US District Court, reasons a trademark may be attacked are things such as that the claimed trademark is a word or words which are merely descriptive of the product, such as "Tasty" brand canned beans or "Nutritious" brand cereal, "Green" brand paint. Such a descriptive term is prohibited even if it is found to be false or misdescriptive. One case I remember from those days was one involving "Humane Hog Rings" (for hogs' noses), which was attacked because it was a (mis)descriptive term. Sorry, I don't remember what the final judgment on that one was.

A term like Supersearch wouldn't fall under that, but it may be improper as a claimed trademark because it is shown to have previous usage (such as Mudcat's Supersearch).

I believe that terms which are scandalous or offensive are not proper trademark terms.

I am not a lawyer, and the above should not be taken as legal advice; merely my recollection from various trademark cases before the court.

Dave Oesterreich