double_arrow
Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Attorney

reCAPTCHA

What Our Customers Say...

Albright IP Limited
4.9
Based on 90 reviews
powered by Google
Emily Warwick
Emily Warwick
14:56 27 Jul 22
My experience with Albright IP has been flawless from start to finish. I... have never filed a patent before so I was learning everything as I went along. They have been helpful in every way possible and gone the extra mile to ensure I was kept in the loop and happy as everything was going through each step of the way. I cannot express enough how pleased I am with their service. I had the pleasure of working with Will, Abigail, and Adrian. I would recommend Albright IP to anyone looking to file a patent application.read more
Simon Mills
Simon Mills
13:22 06 Jul 22
Super helpful advice, and really friendly service. Highly recommend... Albright for IP advice and services.read more
Luke D.
Luke D.
11:25 23 May 22
Was a pleasure to work with Will and Melissa on a patent draft and filing.... Will took the time to understand both my software product and the commercial motivations behind the patent filing. They were extremely responsive to questions and clarifications throughout the process (availability isn't everything, but it certainly helps!).They were also very clear regarding fees, and set out a very helpful visual timeline and cost breakdown on the whole patent application process at the pre-sales stage. This emphasis on making sure I understood all aspects of the work, and having documentation to help with that, is something I didn't see with any of the other patent services I was talking to at the time. This clear communication continued throughout our interactions.Would recommend Albright IP to anyone looking to patent an invention. The patent they filed for me was for a software invention.read more
See All Reviews
js_loader


double_arrow
Need a Product Designer?


double_arrow
Helpful Tips

Do I have to identify the designer?
It is possible to waive the name of the designer when filing a European Community Design, but you should be sure that you have the rights to the design

How is it possible to trademark words?

by | Oct 3, 2016

Trademark wordsSpecsavers have applied to register the trademark “Should’ve” at the UK IPO.

It is a contraction of their familiar slogan: “Should’ve gone to Specsavers”. The case has highlighted a recent tendency towards trademarking common words. Although this strategy is not new. As early as 1993, Carlsberg registered “Probably” as a trademark in relation to their slogan “Probably the best beer in the world”.

Key Trademark requirement

Generally, a key requirement for a trademark to be registered is distinctiveness. The more abstracted a trademark from the goods or services it relates to, the higher its degree of innate distinctiveness.

For the Specsavers’ application, the arbitrary connection between “should’ve” and the goods and services applied for, has not been called into question by the UK IPO examiner, despite the fact that “should’ve” is a common English word. Commentators have expressed surprise that the application was accepted simply on the innate merits of the mark, without Specsavers having to provide evidence of use.

Specsavers have filed their UK application in five classes; broadly covering glasses, hearing aids, stationery, retail services and medical services. Concern has been raised about the breadth of protection that will be afforded if registration is granted. Whilst protection in the context of glasses and opticians’ services may be justifiable by the association of the word with Specsavers’ marketing in the mind of the consumer, it is unclear whether the mark would be enforceable with respect to the unrelated good and services.

Interestingly, in the U.S.A., CitiGroup recently failed to obtain an injunction against AT&T over their alleged infringement of CitiGroup’s mark “THANKYOU”, in the context of consumer reward programs. CitiGroup were unable to establish likelihood of confusion for the phrase despite the similarity of the “AT&T Thanks” scheme. If the same principles are applied here, it suggests that the protection afforded to Specsavers’ mark (if granted), may in fact provide little leverage in practice.

An interesting aspect of the Specsavers’ registration is the concurrent application for “shouldve”. Given the commercial reality of the virtual world that marketers seek to dominate, it is suggested that this mark is intended to ring-fence the Twitter handle #shouldve, that Specsavers use to promote their products. We will watch this space, as other companies follow suit. It can also be assumed that the UK IPO are rapidly re-writing their practice manual, in anticipation of the onslaught.

The Specsavers application remains open to formal oppositions being received against it until 12 October 2016. The potential opponents are already lining up.