5 Ridiculous Trademark Attempts

A lot of people are under the impression that you can trademark anything as long as no one else beats you to it. In reality, this simply isn’t the case 99.9 percent of the time.

There are several rules regarding what you can and can’t trademark, but the primary consideration is that what you are trademarking has to be original or exclusively associated with you or your brand.

Although there have been a few exceptions over the years where the UPSTO approved something that wasn’t completely original, it’s a very rare occurrence. However, that fact doesn’t stop some people and companies from trying to trademark things that obviously don’t qualify.

It’s hard to tell sometimes if these are just publicity stunts or if these people actually think they have a case for their trademark. Either way, some of them are really funny. In this article we’ve found five of the most ridiculous trademark attempts for you to get a laugh at.

1. Walmart Attempts to Trademark Yellow Smiley Face

In 2006, the international retailer Walmart filed an application to trademark the yellow smiley face that use on signs in their stores and in their advertising. Although the yellow smiley face is a key part of their branding, Walmart was not the first company to use the famous icon.

The first-known yellow smiley face was created by a freelance artist named Harvey Ball in 1963, which he sold to the State Mutual Life Insurance Company. The image later reached the masses when two brothers trademarked the combination of the image and the tagline “Have a nice day” and made millions off of merchandise featuring the combination.

2. Harley Davidson Attempts to Trademark the Sound of a Revving Engine

Inspired by NBC (which trademarked their three-tone jingle) and MGM (who trademarked the lion’s roar), Harley Davidson wanted to trademark their own signature sound and filed for an application to trademark the sound of a revving engine. Although their vehicles aren’t the first or only vehicles to feature that sound, one could argue that a loud revving engine is something that most people could associate with Harley Davidson.

However, the application was dropped in the year 2000 after several other manufacturers complained that their engines made the exact same sounds. It might have been a clever idea, but it’s definitely one of the more ridiculous trademark attempts of any auto manufacturer.

3. Jason Gamber Attempts to Trademark the Term “SEO”

The term SEO is an acronym for search engine optimization, which is a marketing strategy to boost the rankings of a website in search engines such as Google. The term is used widely among internet marketers, marketing professionals, and people who manage websites for personal or business use.

The idea of trademarking SEO is almost as ridiculous as trying to trademark the work marketing. Gambert filed several applications beginning in 2007, which never received a final decision until 2010 when a blogger alerted the public of his attempts. Several people filed notices of opposition and the UPSTO denied his requests in March of 2010.

4. Donald Trump Attempts to Trademark the Phrase “You’re Fired”

No surprise here, as The Donald is known for his attention-grabbing antics. Following the success of his reality show The Apprentice, Trump attempted to trademark his signature phrase from the show -- “you’re fired” -- in an attempt to make more money off the show’s success.

Despite the fact that this phrase is so commonly used in the public domain, that’s not the exact reason that Trump was denied. Apparently, officials felt that “you’re fired” sounded too similar to “You’re Hired,” which is an educational board game.

5. The New England Patriots Attempt to Trademark “19-0”

After going undefeated throughout the entire 2008 season and the playoffs, the New England Patriots’ owner rushed to apply for a trademark on the phrase “19-0” just weeks before the Super Bowl. They ended up losing the Super Bowl to the New York Giants, losing their perfect record. In addition, they were denied their trademark.

The New York Post refused to let them off the hook for this ridiculous trademark patent and filed an application for the phrase “18-1” following the Giants victory in the Super Bowl.

Bonus: Boise State University Successfully Trademarks Their Blue Turf

Just to give you an idea of the ridiculous trademarks that do get approved, here is a great example. For years Boise State University has been known for their signature blue turf, also referred to as the Smurf Turf.

In 2009 they finally claimed their signature turf officially, which prevents other universities from using blue turf in their football stadiums. (Not that they want to.) In an interesting turn of events, several universities responded by changing the colors of their fields. A notable example is Eastern Washington that installed bright red turf.

Kyle Stout is a freelance writer based out of Houston, TX. This article was prepared on behalf of Vethan Law Firm P.C.

Rules on Service of Summons

Rules on service of summons is largely dependent upon the nature of action: whether it is in personan, in rem, or quasi in rem. In SPOUSES DOMINGO M. BELEN, ET. AL., vs. HON. PABLO R. CHAVEZ, et al. G.R. No. 175334, March 26, 2008, the Supreme Court cited a case, to wit:

In Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals,[7] the Court underscored the necessity of determining first whether the action is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem because the rules on service of summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines apply according to the nature of the action.The Court elaborated, thus:

In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by personal service of summons as provided under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule. If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted service set forth in Section 8; (2) personal service outside the country, with leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of court; or (4) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.

However, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This method of service is possible if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him. An exception was laid down in Gemperle v. Schenker wherein a non-resident was served with summons through his wife, who was a resident of the Philippines and who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed by him; moreover, the second case was a mere offshoot of the first case.

On the other hand, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements. Thus, where the defendant is a non-resident who is not found in the Philippines and (1) the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) the action relates to, or the subject matter of which is property in the Philippines in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest; (3) the action seeks the exclusion of the defendant from any interest in the property located in the Philippines; or (4) the property of the defendant has been attached in the Philippines service of summons may be effected by (a) personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (b) publication, also with leave of court; or (c) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.