Latest news with #trademark
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
James Bond owners say name battle is ‘assault' on 007 franchise
The owners of James Bond have called the attempt by an Austrian businessman to take control of the superspy's name across Europe an 'unprecedented assault' on the multibillion-pound global franchise. In February, the Guardian revealed that a Dubai-based property developer had filed claims in the UK and EU arguing that lack of use meant various protections had lapsed around James Bond's intellectual property, including his name, his 007 assignation and the catchphrase 'Bond, James Bond'. Nearly all of the nine trademarks being challenged relate to the merchandising of goods and services under the Bond name, which can be challenged after five years of 'non-use'. Josef Kleindienst, an Austrian who is building a $5bn (£3.7bn) luxury resort complex called the Heart of Europe on six artificial islands off Dubai, has argued the trademarks have been commercially under-exploited. Lawyers representing Danjaq, the US-based company which controls the rights to worldwide James Bond merchandising in conjunction with the UK-based production company Eon, have hit back, aiming to vigorously defend the 007 franchise. 'James Bond is a trademark of the highest reputation in the EU,' said Rudolf Böckenholt at Boehmert & Boehmert, one of the largest intellectual property (IP) law firms in Europe, representing Danjaq. 'The trademarks are also licensed for numerous consumer products and merchandise products, ranging from very luxurious products to everyday products, as well as further services. These goods and the corresponding services are covered by a number of trademarks that have been challenged and attacked by the claimant Josef Kleindienst in an unprecedented assault.' It has also emerged that Kleindienst has extended his attempt to try to take control of the spy's various brands by also submitting his own trademark for James Bond in Europe. He has not, however, done the same in the UK. The European IP law firm Withers & Rogers said this is likely to be because the 'intention to use test' that applications are submitted to is more stringently applied by the UK's Intellectual Property Office than its continental equivalent the EU Intellectual Property Office. 'Danjaq would be more likely to object to the registration [in the UK] on the grounds of 'bad faith',' said Mark Caddle, a partner and trademark attorney at Withers & Rogers. Danjaq's lawyers are putting together evidence to prove the trademarks are still being commercialised, while at the same time arguing that Kleindienst's 'non-use' challenges 'represent abuse of process'. Kleindienst was approached for comment. 'The plot thickens,' Caddle said. 'Opting for an 'abuse of use' defence suggests that Danjaq could believe that the cancellation attempt is not legitimate, and specifically, that the challenger may not be intending to use the marks commercially. While it is impossible to say for sure what the challenger's motives are in this case, the James Bond trademark portfolio and its legacy value does make it an enticing target for opportunists, and further cancellation attempts can't be ruled out.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Daniel Craig's last outing as 007, No Time to Die, was released in 2021 and with no announcement yet of his replacement or timeline for production of the next film, the franchise is on track to beat the previous longest gap between instalments of six years and four months. Danjaq also co-owns the copyright to the existing Bond films, along with MGM Studios, which was acquired by Amazon for $8.5bn in 2021. Days after the report of Kleindienst's legal challenges, it emerged that Amazon had paid more than $1bn to gain full 'creative control' of the franchise from Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson, the longtime stewards of the Bond films. With creative control, Amazon now has the power to move forward with new films and potentially TV spin-offs, without approval from the two British-American heirs to the film producer Albert 'Cubby' Broccoli, who had overseen the integrity of the character originally created in 1953 by the author Ian Fleming. In March, Amazon confirmed that Amy Pascal and David Heyman would steer the next Bond film, although no release date or lead actor has yet been named. Pascal has experience with the Bond series in her previous position as Sony's chair of film, overseeing Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. She also had producer credits on the latest Spider-Man series. Heyman is best known as the producer of the Harry Potter films as well as the Fantastic Beasts franchise and is now in pre-production on the much-anticipated HBO TV series adaptation of the stories. He is the second most commercially successful film producer of all time, with credits including Gravity, Paddington, Barbie, Wonka and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
Bloomberg
a day ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Disney and Comcast's AI Lawsuit May Open a Pandora's Box
The ongoing debate over generative artificial intelligence — particularly when such use conflicts with trademarks and copyright law — came to a head last week in what could be one of the most significant lawsuits in determining the future of the entertainment industry. The co-plaintiffs are two of the most powerful companies in the business: the Walt Disney Co. and Comcast Corp. The defendant is Midjourney Inc., a generative AI startup that the media giants are accusing of copyright infringement. The lawsuit could prove a fascinating feat of Hollywood needle-threading, in which these powerful companies attempt to separate unacceptable and acceptable generative AI. It's a distinction that appears mostly rooted in what costs them money versus what saves it.
The Sun
2 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Brooklyn Beckham in new legal row after splashing out on £11m mansion and turning his back on parents in UK
BROOKLYN Beckham has been involved in yet another legal battle with a booze brand - this time with a luxury wine company. The 26-year-old has been caught up in a second legal battling regarding trademarking names for his businesses after running into issues with his hot sauce firm and various spin offs with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 3 3 He's currently battling the makers of alcohol brand Becks over his application to rubber stamp the name 'Becks Buns'. But now we can reveal that he was involved in another tussle with an alcohol maker when trying to trademark 'C23', which is the shortened name of his hot sauce brand Cloud23. A California wine business, Stag's Leap Wine Cellars, shot back at his plans, which were lodged officially by his company, Buster Hot Sauce Inc, against the trademark. The business is a luxury alcohol brand based in the wine region of Napa Valley, known for being frequented by A-listers. Amongst some of the company's products are the very pricey Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard which is known as the Cask 23. Depending on the year of the vintage, a bottle can set you back a few grand with the Cask 23 Cab Sav from 2018 currently selling for around £2,000. Cask 23 is currently stocked at luxury retailers including Selfridges, the most recent one is from 2021 and costs around £280. In order to avoid a battle with the company, Brooklyn's firm deleted the classification of all types of booze from the application they made. A rep for Brooklyn could not be reached for comment. So far, Brooklyn hasn't managed to trademark any of the names related to his hot sauce company, namely, two versions Cloud 23, C23 and Becks Buns. The Sun first revealed earlier this month how the brand behind Beck's beer had objected to his plans. The beer's German parent firm Brauerei Beck & Co has opposed it and been granted an extension until next month to file documents. The company is part of alcohol giant AB InBev, which produces one in four lagers sold worldwide, including Stella Artois and Budweiser as well as Beck's. Brooklyn launched his first hot sauce, Cloud 23, last year and said: 'It's been a passion project of mine for the last 2½ years, something I've literally put everything into. "I've never worked so hard on anything in my life.' His parents attended the launch event in LA. However, insiders said their relationship has ' never been more fractured ' amid the ongoing Beckham family feud. As the feud rumbles on, it was revealed that Brooklyn had splashed out a cool £11million alongside his wife Nicola on a new Hollywood mansion. It means he has put down roots 5,540 miles from his London-based dad David and mum Victoria - and shows no sign of returning home any time soon. Last night a source said: 'Brooklyn's wife is American, as are her family whom he adores, and he feels his life now is Stateside. 'As an influencer he can work from anywhere but Brooklyn believes he has more opportunities in LA. It will be a dagger to the heart for his parents. "Until now, the couple have always been renting so there was hope his relocation wouldn't be permanent. 'This house purchase quashes any last hopes.' 3
Bloomberg
7 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Trump Seeks to Register His Name for Mobile Phone Service
DTTM Operations LLC, the entity that manages trademarks on behalf of President Donald Trump, has applied to use his name and the term T1 for telecom services. The requests cover mobile phones, cases, battery chargers and wireless telephone services, as well as potentially retail stores. The applications with the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office were filed on Thursday, according to a public database.
Forbes
13-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Rethinking The Patent Office
Entrepreneurs tend to have a lot of things that they want to patent, trademark, or copyright. That means going through some government bureaucracy to get things done. Is it exasperating? Yes. Confusing? Obnoxiously so. Does it have to be that way? No, not at all. When you're an entrepreneur like me, you tend to have a lot of things that you want to patent, trademark, or copyright, and that means I have to go through some government bureaucracy to get things done. Is it exasperating? Yes. Confusing? Obnoxiously so. Does it have to be that way? No, not at all. In fact, it turns out it wasn't that way until relatively recently—in my lifetime, even. So to find out more, I spoke to a gentleman whom I know very well. His name is Steven Thrasher, and he's an entrepreneurial intellectual property attorney. He has decades of experience dealing with patents as well as helping people like me out with our own United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issues, so he knows his stuff. And, after we talked the other day, he had a few ideas on how to change the system—and other government agencies—to actually function well instead of impeding creation. The USPTO, in its modern form, was established in 1952. Back then, filing a patent or trademark was a fairly simple process. Few people worked at the organization overall, and they knew the steps by heart. Those folks knew all of the goals and systems involved, so if you came in there to file a patent, it was easy. This was a simple system, with most inventors only ever paying one small fee. Have you ever heard of Gall's Law? Steven introduced me to the idea. Put simply, it is this: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working, simple system. This, in a nutshell, is what happened to the Patent Office. In 1952, it was simple. Then, over the years, things got more complicated, and yet for decades it was OK. 'Your old guard that were around when these new processes were introduced,' Steven explained,' they still had the ability when they're in the system to nudge things to their proper place and get processes done. As they retired, you had a typically bureaucratic class replace them. They have good intentions, but they just don't understand how the processes fit together, and they have different, often process-counting, goals.' A simple system becomes very, very complicated, and that one simple fee becomes hundreds of complex fees for every conceivable micro-step in the process. 'So it started with an expert class,' he said. 'Now you have a bureaucratic class that values the procedure over the original outcome-oriented goal of protecting intellectual property.' If you wanted to work with the USPTO when it started, you could read a book called The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Steven was able to get his hands on a copy of the earliest one from decades ago. 'My earliest mentor, a guy named Harry Post, had a book—The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure—that was about 250 pages long. He got it when he started back in the late 1950s,' Steven said. 'Today, that same manual is over 3,000 pages long.' In the course of doing my due diligence, I did some research. You can find The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure online—they have PDFs dating back to 1948. So I pulled the one from July 1958, the latest copy you can get that Harry might have had. Sure enough, it's 259 pages. Today's version is much, much longer. What this all boils down to is that today, if you need to get a patent or trademark on something, not only are the fees prohibitive, but the entire process is opaque and complex. Steve told me about a client who needed help getting through it, and in the end, was sent a letter because they didn't pay enough. It didn't say how much was owed or what fees were owed. But how much should they cough up? 'So my assistants and I called the patent office,' Steve said. 'We had three different answers for the fees we needed to pay. It took my assistant nearly 12 hours, took me nearly five hours, and the response papers were 16 pages of long documentation and copies to pay a $206 fee, which we're not even confident is the correct amount or type of fee that is owed. To be safe, we just paid the highest fee that was quoted.' This is why people get frustrated with government agencies. I could go on and on about all of the complications here with the system, but ultimately, what does this mean for the future? Steve believes that, based on the fiscal pressures the country is under, we will see a simplification of the process, and part of that is based on the need for inter- and intra-agency communication. 'Right now everybody has their own silo,' Steve told me. 'Bureaucrats love their own silo because that gives them control over their defined responsibility, and in a sense power in that silo.' This leads to a lack of communication between the people inside the agency. Outside the agency? Forget about it. Rarely happens. The solution is simplification and communication. We need to get people talking, sharing data between each other, and breaking down these complex systems and ideas. It doesn't have to be this difficult.
