Blockchain.io Responds to BLOCKCHAIN Trademark Lawsuit

I blogged the complaint filed by Blockchain Luxembourg against Blockchain.io here last week.

I have now been contacted by the head of communications for Blockchain.io, who asked that I post the following:

Paymium, that has been successfully operating a BTC/EUR exchange since 2013 and serving 170,000 customers, is currently closing its private ICO to accelerate the rollout of Blockchain.io. The public sale for this complementary cryptocurrency exchange service will start on September 27. 

The domain name Blockchain.io was registered by Paymium way back in April 2012 (https://www.whois.com/whois/blockchain.io), and the Blockchain.io project launch was publicly advertised in the press months ago. 3 days before the beginning of the sale, and a few weeks away from the official release of our platform, it thus comes as no surprise that we are challenged by some potential competitors, for obvious reasons. We condemn this approach that surely doesn’t comply with the crypto-community values. 

Moreover, Blockchain.io disputes the accusation of making false and misleading statements. What is at stake is, at first, the protection of our name, our reputation, and our loyal investors and customers. For these reasons, our lawyers will answer point by point the claims that have been made.

As for our ICO, we already provided early investors with the alpha version of our platform that is ready to be launched right after the public sale in November. The name blockchain.io is the legal property of Paymium and the public sale will start as planned on September 27.”


Text of Fed Circ Decision in Royal Crown v Coke in COKE ZERO Case

Royal Crown opposed various applications by Coke to register terms that included the word ZERO, on grounds of genericness (or, in the alternative, that the terms were highly descriptive and Coke had not shown a sufficient degree of secondary menaing in the term).

The court instructed the Board to consider, on remand, whether ZERO is generic because it “refers to a key aspect of at least a sub-group or type of the claimed beverage goods.”

As to secondary meaning, the more descriptive a term is, the higher the level of secondary meaning that must be shown. A highly descriptive term such as, perhaps, ZERO, is held to an ‘exacting’ standard.

TTABlog discussion here.


Is MOO DUK KWAN Generic?


Trade Dress Protection in Catalogs, or Lack Thereof

bonella cards

From the knock-down drag-out world of religious prayer cards: plaintiff fails to establish trade dress in its catalog. Exhaustive discussion of analysis of trademark protection for the ‘look and feel’ of a catalog.

43(b)log discussion of Gerffert v Dean here.

gerffert trade dress in catalog.pdf


Defendant Fails To Rebut Presumption of Registrability in CHALK PAINT


What-Not-To-Do list for Surveys


SWEAT SHOPPE for cycling studio v SWEAT SHOPPE for day spa


INTA Amicus Brief re LADY GAGA brand Recorded Music in Japan

INTA amicus brief on whether LADY GAGA is registrable as a trademark for class 9 recorded music, in Japan.

inta lady gaga descriptiveness brief.pdf



Plaintiff has an incontestable registration for REGISTERED AGENTS, LTD. covering filing and retrieval of incorporation and corporate documents with government agencies.
Complaint Registered Agents Ltd Delaware




Apple Fails To Show Likelihood of Confusion re Amazon's Use of AppStore

ND Cal District Judge denies Apple’s motion for preliminary injunction regarding Amazon’s use of APP STORE FOR ANDROID.  The Court denied to hold whether APP STORE is a generic term, but rather held that Apple failed to show a likelihood of confusion (noting that Apple failed to show that APP STORE was a strong mark).  In the discussion of the dilution count, the Judge indicated that APP STORE is more ‘descriptive’ than ‘distinctive.’

Decision Apple v Amazon Prelim AppStore