Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

Trademark Application Challenged for DooDee Pun

Written by: on November 30, 2017 | Category: Blog | Tags:

A small business in Illinois filed a trademark application last summer for its new business idea – “Call of Doodee,” focused on dog waste removal services. Video game players and their parents and/or significant others will recognize that the business’s name is an homage to the very popular “Call of Duty” first-person shooter video game franchise. Although the business owner filed an express abandonment of the trademark application at the end of October, the application was already scheduled to be published on Halloween. In response to this publication, the maker of Call of Duty, Activision Publishing, Inc., filed an Extension of Time to Oppose the Registration, presumably to determine if the waste removal business intends to move forward with the name, potentially sullying the reputation of a game that, in my opinion, already has a questionable reputation of its own.

Some of you may be thinking, “I know the difference between a business that makes my favorite super violent video game and a person I pay to clean up the backyard.” That is an excellent point, for which you should pat yourself on the back. Trademark law mostly concerns itself with consumer confusion, so if the average consumer would recognize Call of DooDee, as a pun and likely a service relating to dog feces, then the Trademark Office would be less concerned about the connection to the popular video game. Activision may rely on another tenet of trademark law, called dilution, which protects very famous marks from having their unique marks diluted in the marketplace by another less famous mark.  However, the current DooDee controversy would likely be governed by case law from the oh-so-appropriately titled case, Louis Vuitton v. Haute Diggity Dog (507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)), which held that “Chewy Vuiton” parody-purse dog toys were not impairing the distinctiveness of, and therefore not diluting, Louis Vuitton’s well-known trademarks.

While we can’t know yet how this matter will be resolved, let’s give a hat tip to “Call of Doodee” waste removal services in Channahon, IL, for a great business name and hearty applause to me for abstaining from dog-punning throughout. This is a good lesson for business-owners. While there was real oppawtunity here for a blossoming business, every brand-owner must furst consider any risks before selecting a mark, or its efforts may be curtailed and it could be hounded.

In addition to her clever puns, Attorney Nicole J. O’Hara guides individuals and businesses through the trademark application process. She also provides counsel in other areas of intellectual property law including patents and copyrights.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog