Well, “Sweet Dreams” is definitely a registered trademark of Hilton’s Doubletree line of hotels. But why/how was it registered (and renewed!)?

Doubletree’s stated use of the trademark “Sweet Dreams” (for “hotel services”) and the way they use it on the specimen they submitted with the trademark application in 2002 (as a tag to sell cookies) and on the specimen they submitted in 2006 in support of the renewal of the trademark (“Sweet Dreams(r), Doubletree cookie story) seem markedly unrelated to “hotel services.”

And the specimen they submitted later in 2006 seems even more oblique with regard to “hotel services” and the source of those services.

How does a decoration of “Sweet Dreams” on a pillow indicate the source of hotel services? Does a “decorative motif” that is merely ornamental function as a trademark?

The USPTO’s TMEP (Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure), which is used by USPTO examining attorneys to determine whether something is a registrable trademark, states:

“Matter that is purely ornamental or decorative does not function as a trademark and is unregistrable on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register.The significance of the proposed mark is a factor to consider when determining whether ornamental matter serves a trademark function. Common expressions and symbols (e.g., the peace symbol, “smiley face,” or the phrase “Have a Nice Day”) are normally not perceived as marks.”
(Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure (TMEP), §1202.3(a))

Slogans or phrases that purchasers will perceive as conveying a message rather than indicating the source of the goods will be refused registration because the slogans/phrases do not function as trademarks. TMEP §1202.3(f)(i)

Where does that leave us with this pillow? Does “Sweet Dreams” function as a service mark for “hotel services” here? Or anywhere?

Each year, Henri Bendel conducts an open casting call for designers.

Admission is open and is on a first-come-first-seen basis.

The next “open see” is on Friday, March 23, 2012 at Bendel’s Fifth Avenue flagship store (712 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10019).

The “open see” is for the following categories:
- Cosmetics
- Skincare
- Fragrance
- Gifts
- Accessories (jewelry, handbags & small leather goods, belts, cold weather accessories, hats, hair accessories)

Email customercare@henribendel.com if you have further questions.

A new type of corporation now exists in New York: the Benefit Corporation (“B-Corp”).

Unlike regular corporations, the B-Corp is not required to maximize profits or take actions solely to benefit its shareholders. Instead, the new law requires that when deliberating corporate actions, executives must consider the environment and the interests of workers and communities. The new law explicitly states, “the creation of general and specific public benefits is in the best interest of the B-Corp.”

The B-Corp is a privately-owned corporation that benefits the public in both general and specific ways. This is different from a regular corporation, which has the specific purpose of generating profits. It also differs from a not-for-profit corporation, which is not privately-owned.

Every B-Corp has the purpose of creating a “general public benefit,” which means that the B-Corp’s business and operations will have a material positive impact on society and the environment.

Each B-Corp will also provide one or more “specific public benefits,” such as:
- providing underserved populations with beneficial products or services;
- promoting economic opportunity beyond the normal creation of jobs;
- preserving the environment;
- improving human health;
- promoting the arts, sciences, and/or advancement of knowledge;
- increasing the flow of capital to entities with a public benefit purpose;
and/or accomplishing any other articulated benefit for society or the environment.

The directors and officers of the B-Corp must consider how corporate actions will accomplish its stated general and specific public benefit goals and what impact those corporate actions will have on the local and global environment and on the interests of employees, customers, and the community in which the B-Corp operates.

The beneficial impact of the B-Corp will be assessed against an independent third-party standard. A “third-party standard” is a recognized standard, developed independently of the B-Corp, for assessing the public benefit of B-Corps.

The third-party standard for B-Corps must be transparent by making the following information publicly available: (i) the factors considered when measuring the performance of a B-Corp; (ii) the relative weight of those factors; and (iii) the names of those who developed and control changes to the third-party standard and the process by which the standard can be changed.

At the end of each fiscal year, the B-Corp will generate an annual “benefit report” to distribute to its shareholders, share with the public, and file with the Department of State.

The benefit report will include a description of how the benefit corporation created its general and specific public benefits during the fiscal year as well as any circumstances that may have hindered the creation of general or specific public benefit by the benefit corporation.

A regular corporation can either become a B-Corp or terminate its status as a B-Corp by approval of at least a “minimum status vote” of seventy-five percent of the outstanding voting shares (in addition to any other required approvals).

Contact us at bcorps@heratylaw.com to form a B-Corp or to make your current regular corporation a B-Corp.

We oppose HR 3699 – the Research Works Act – because we believe that taxpayer-funded research should NOT belong to private publishers. The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA49] and Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14].

Michael Eisen wrote an article about the link between Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s support for the bill and the large number of contributions she has received from senior American executives of the Dutch publishing conglomerate Elsevier (a company that stands to benefit mightily if HR 3699 ever becomes law).

Mr. Eisen also wrote about the similarity between Rep. Maloney’s letter defending HR 3699 and Elsevier’s “talking points” about HR 3699. He has posted both Rep. Maloney’s letter and Elsevier’s talking points in his article, so you can judge for yourself.

For one of the many other reasons this bill should be defeated, check out JasonZevin’s letter opposing the Research Works Act: http://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3699/comment/271950

Visit popvox.com for more commentary on this bill, and to add your own viewpoint.

Hoo boy, look at all these OCCUPY trademarks… The march of commerce never stops.