Trademark applications are stored on publicly accessible databases. As a result, private entities can idnetify trademark applicants, and send them solicitations. Some of these solications are formatted to resemble official documents. While some solications may be for watching services, some request fees for listing on directories of no apparent merit.
We have accumulated this list by reviewing such solications and from ‘warning’ notices sent by other firms. We cannot comment on the legitimacy of any of the entities on this list but we can note that NONE OF THESE ENTITIES ARE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES and that NO PAYMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO THESE ENTITIES TO MAINTAIN TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS OR PENDING APPLICATIONS.
American Trademark Agency
Company for Economic Publications Ltd. – Vienna, Austria
CPI (Company for Publications and Information Anstalt, and not be confused with Computer Packages Inc. of the U.S. and the Netherlands).
Globus Edition S.L. – Spain
INFOCOM – Switzerland
Publication et Information SARL – Liechenstein
Societe pour Global Edition KFT
TM-Collection Kft – Hungary
TMI Trademark Info Corporation – Texas
Trademark Renewal Service – Washington D.C.
U.S. Trademark Maintenance Service – Houston, TX
U.S. Trademark Protection Agency – Washington DC.
ZDR-Datenregister GmbH – Germany
If you have suggested additions to this list, please forward the questionable invoice to marty at schwimmerlegal dot com.

galbraith donut.jpg
donut snap rotate.jpg
We have this pillow and this sofa, in microfiber (because of the dogs) at home. Anyway, Galbraith & Paul owns the copyright in this donut design and someone, allegedly, produced lamp shades that allegedly infringe the fabric, and Ruby Tuesday has such lamps in its restaurants. It then ran photos of its restaurants with the lamps in the background in promotional materials (cropped example above).
Galbraith & Paul has now sued Ruby Tuesday in the SDNY, on copyright and trademark grounds.
Galbraith & Paul v. Ruby Tuesday, 07 cv 10512 (SDNY Nov. 29 2007)
PRACTICE POINTER: If you operate a business in some sort of public space, such as a restaurant, and you utilize a furnishing or a decoration that may contain a copyrightable element (such as a lampshade, or a wallpaper or a poster), then your use of such an item may constitute a public display of the work, and if the item is infringing, then you may have some exposure for copyright infringement. You may have a claim against the supply store that sold you the 50,000 lampshades or whatever, which you may be able to collect on if they still return phone calls. When buying items, even useful items like lamps and chairs, that will be displayed in public, you need reps and warranties and indemnification from the supplier, that will cover potential copyright and trade dress claims.

Discourse.net: “Can Typosquatting Be Counterfeiting?”
“The story there is about Dell bringing a very large and organized case against a bunch of domain tasters (people who register domain names for a very brief period then drop them, so they don’t have to pay for them) who were apparently typosquatting on a grand scale.
What makes the story interesting is that Dell’s lawyers threw in a counterfeiting claim into their complaint. It’s artfully worded, but the essence of it is that the counterfeits are the domain names, and/or the act of putting up web sites at the domain names that have popups or pop-under ads.”

dagwood.jpg
A Dagwood sandwich is a very big sandwich, named after the comic strip character, Dagwood Bumsted, who liked to make big sandwiches. An Indiana company alleges that it has operated Dagwood sandwich shops in Indiana since the 80’s. A nationwide chain, Dagwood Sandwich Shops, LLC, has federal registrations. The Indiana company sued the chain in Indiana state court; the chain has now removed to federal court.
Of interest: “Dagwood Sandwich” has become a dictionary word, while King Features still syndicates “Blondie and Dagwood.”
Dagwood’s Deli-sub Shop, Inc. v. Dagwood’s Sandwich Shoppe, LLC, 2007cv01507 (S.D. Indiana Nov 21 2007).