Trademark Policy Collaboration

Appendix: Examples of Webpage Display Specimens :

This section is for the discussion of the Appendix: Examples of Webpage Display Specimens.

• Recent Ideas (3)
• Popular Ideas (3)
• Hot Ideas (0)

• I agree

  Feedback Score

  2

  +2

  -0

  I disagree
  This idea is in review.
  Appendix: Examples of Webpage Display Specimens »

  Example 9 in Appendix (Macy's website)

  The last bullet point states: • Webpage is not acceptable for goods given the presence of third party goods and marks therefor (e.g., “Cuisinart” and “Polo by Ralph Lauren”). The reason the webpage is not acceptable for goods is not because third party marks appear on the page, but because Macy's is not, in fact, the source of the goods shown. This should be revised to something like "webpage is not acceptable for goods ...more »

  The last bullet point states:

  • Webpage is not acceptable for goods given the presence of third party goods and marks therefor (e.g., “Cuisinart” and “Polo by Ralph Lauren”).

  The reason the webpage is not acceptable for goods is not because third party marks appear on the page, but because Macy's is not, in fact, the source of the goods shown. This should be revised to something like "webpage is not acceptable for goods because it shows the mark used for retail store services featuring the goods of others."

  Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

  « less full details »

  1 comment for Idea: Example 9 in Appendix (Macy's website)

  Submitted by Allison Strickland Ricketts 6 months ago

• I agree

  Feedback Score

  0

  +0

  -0

  I disagree
  This idea is in review.
  Appendix: Examples of Webpage Display Specimens »

  Example #4 (hypothetical web page)

  The final bullet point reads: • If the proposed mark were “T.Markey Your Clothing Emporium” (as it appears in the upper left corner), the webpage would not be acceptable for goods because of the proximity and association of the other marks with the goods (i.e., “Teeyak” and “Keeping you cozy.”). Why does the "proximity and association of other marks with the goods" preclude the company's name in the upper left-hand corner ...more »

  The final bullet point reads:

  • If the proposed mark were “T.Markey Your Clothing Emporium” (as it appears in the upper left corner), the webpage would not be acceptable for goods because of the proximity and association of the other marks with the goods (i.e., “Teeyak” and “Keeping you cozy.”).

  Why does the "proximity and association of other marks with the goods" preclude the company's name in the upper left-hand corner of website from also operating as a source-indicator? The actual labels/hang-tags on the products could well bear all these marks (many hangtags do bear the manufacturer name, the product name, and a tagline, as here) and all are accepted as serving a source-indicating function. And if the closer mark and tagline were not included, then the website display would be accepted as an adequate specimen (per one of the other examples given in this Appendix). In my opinion, the last bullet point should be removed.

  « less full details »

  1 comment for Idea: Example #4 (hypothetical web page)

  Submitted by Allison Strickland Ricketts 6 months ago

• I agree

  Feedback Score

  0

  +0

  -0

  I disagree
  This idea is in review.
  Appendix: Examples of Webpage Display Specimens »

  Unacceptable Specimens Example 10

  An example with no other issues other than the mark "is not associated with the goods" should be used. Because this specimen also fails with regard to "ordering information" it is not a good example.

  1 comment for Idea: Unacceptable Specimens Example 10

  Submitted by janderfuren 6 months ago

Displaying all 3 Ideas