News

McCoy Russell Recently celebrated its staff for another year well done. Celebrating 007 style, the firm transformed its collaborative space into the IronCrow Casino for one night only inviting its staff for a night of fun. We thank the McCoy Russell Teams for their consistent and continued collaborative efforts. It was great to celebrate another successful year together!

Driven by social media trends and influencer endorsements, “dupe culture” has emerged as a significant phenomenon. Dupe culture, short for “duplicate culture,” refers to the practice of creating and popularizing lower-cost alternatives that mimic the look, feel, or functionality of high-end branded products. The terms dupe and counterfeit are often used interchangeably, but they represent distinctly different concepts with significant implications for trademarks and branding. Understanding these distinctions is important for consumers, businesses, and policymakers as they navigate the complexities of intellectual property law.

What Is a Dupe?

A dupe (short for duplicate) refers to a product that resembles a high-end or branded item but is allegedly legally produced and marketed under a different name. These products aim to provide a similar aesthetic, functionality, or appeal as a premium, luxury, or iconic brand at a more affordable price point. For instance, a budget-friendly lipstick that closely mimics the shade and texture of a luxury brand’s product could be considered a dupe. However, dupes attempt not to use the original brand’s logo, trademarks, or trade dress, thus attempting to avoid direct infringement.

What Is a Counterfeit?

Counterfeit goods, in contrast, are unauthorized replicas designed to deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing genuine branded products. Counterfeits often replicate trademarks, logos, packaging, and other identifying features of the original brand, clearly violating intellectual property laws. Common examples include fake designer handbags, apparel, and electronics.

Trademarks are a vital aspect of branding, helping companies establish their identity and build consumer trust. In the next post, McCoy Russell will explore the impact of counterfeiting and dupe culture for consumers and brands.

With its lead partner having over 20 years of experience in trademark practice, McCoy Russell has established itself as a partner with its clients in developing strong branding rights. Contact us if we can be of assistance.

As a boutique, woman-owned intellectual property firm, McCoy Russell attributes its recognition as a top-performing firm to its exceptional teams of legal, technical, and administrative professionals. We proudly celebrate their unwavering dedication, expertise, and professionalism.

The firm’s continued success is built on the foundation of its talented professionals. From managing client communications and providing legal support to technical drafting, these teams work collaboratively to deliver exceptional service to McCoy Russell’s clients.

McCoy Russell LLP extends heartfelt gratitude to its professionals for their significant contributions. Their dedication supports the firm in providing strategic patent and trademark solutions.

McCoy Russell is honored to once again be recognized by Best Lawyers and Best Law Firms, earning the highest recognition for its practice in intellectual property law in Oregon. This ranking underscores the firm’s dedication to providing high-quality and cost effective legal services to the benefit of its clients.

The Best Law Firms® rankings are the result of a comprehensive evaluation process that includes client and professional reference assessments, peer reviews from leading attorneys, and in-depth interviews with industry experts. Law firms are rigorously vetted, with rankings awarded to those meeting high standards of quality and professionalism. Only firms with attorneys recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for specific practice areas and locations are eligible for these rankings.

McCoy Russell also congratulates Partners Anna McCoy, John Russell, and Justin Wagner for their individual recognitions in intellectual property law. Their contributions and expertise continue to shape the firm’s approach to intellectual property strategy and development of intellectual property portfolios.

The USPTO has issued a final rule adjusting trademark-related fees effective January 18, 2025. These changes aim to align fee collections with the costs of trademark services. Key fee adjustments include increases in application filing fees, post-registration filings, and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings. The rule also introduces new fees for filing letters of protest and for removing goods or services from registrations during specific procedures.

Major changes include:

Application Fees:

• Paper Applications (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(i)): Increased from $750 to $850 per class.
• Applications via WIPO (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(ii)): Initial filings increased from $500 to $600 per class.
• Subsequent designations also raised from $500 to $600 per class.
• Electronic TEAS Standard Applications (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(iii)): Replaced with a base application fee set at $350 per class.

Post-Registration and Declaration Fees

Section 8 Declarations (CFR 2.6(a) (12)):

• Paper filings increased from $325 to $425 per class.
• Electronic filings increased from $225 to $325 per class.

Section 15 Declarations (CFR 2.6(a) (13)):

• Paper filings increased from $300 to $350 per class.
• Electronic filings increased from $200 to $250 per class.

Section 9 Renewal Applications (CFR 2.6(a)(5)):

• Paper filings increased from $500 to $525 per class.
• Electronic filings increased from $300 to $325 per class.

New Fees

• Insufficient Information for TEAS Applications (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(iv)): Introduced at $100 per class (paper or electronic).
• Use of Free-Form Text Boxes for Goods/Services (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(v)): Introduced at $200 per class (paper or electronic).
• Additional Text Beyond 1,000 Characters (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(vi)): Introduced at $200 per 1,000 characters (paper or electronic).

TTAB and Petition Fees

Petitions to the Director (CFR 2.6(a) (15)):

• Paper filings increased from $350 to $500.
• Electronic filings increased from $250 to $400.

Petitions to Revive Applications (CFR 2.6(a) (15)):

• Paper filings increased from $250 to $350.
• Electronic filings increased from $150 to $250.

Other Adjustments

• Letters of Protest (CFR 2.6(a) (25)): Increased from $50 to $150.

Amendments and Statements of Use (CFR 2.6(a)(2) -(3)):

• Fees increased by $50 per class for both paper and electronic filings.

The updates are expected to generate additional revenue, helping the USPTO meet its strategic goals, such as improving efficiency in processing and appeals and encouraging broader participation in intellectual property protection. The rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements and seeks to minimize economic impacts on small entities​.

For further details, you can view the complete rule here (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/18/2024-26644/setting-and-adjusting-trademark-fees-during-fiscal-year-2025).

McCoy Russell is dedicated to providing strategic solutions for intellectual property portfolio development. Contact us if you think we can be of assistance.

Companies looking to protect their unique and memorable expressions have new support from the Brazilian Trademark Office (INPI). INPI has recently revised its interpretation of Article 124, Item VII, of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law, now permitting the registration of advertising slogans as trademarks, provided they meet distinctiveness requirements. This policy update represents a significant development in the protection of intellectual property and offers new trademark opportunities for companies seeking to safeguard their brand expressions.

Expanded Criteria for Slogan Trademark Registration

Under the revised guidelines, INPI will evaluate whether an advertising slogan functions solely as a promotional tool or also serves to identify the origin of goods or services. If a slogan exclusively promotes, it may still lack the distinctiveness required for trademark registration. However, if a slogan meets distinctiveness standards and also acts as a source identifier, it may now qualify for trademark status.

The updated criteria outline several characteristics of expressions considered primarily promotional, including those that:

• Recommend a product or service,
• Highlight specific qualities or attributes,
• Reflect the company’s mission, values, or concepts,
• Persuade or call the audience to action, or
• Distinguish the product or service from competitors.
• Emphasis on Distinctiveness Through “Originality”

A central factor in determining eligibility for trademark protection is the “distinctive character” of the expression. INPI has introduced the concept of “originality,” interpreted through exclusion, as a basis for assessing distinctiveness. Under this standard, a slogan will meet the originality requirement if it is neither descriptive, comparative, nor solely promotional or complimentary of a product or service’s quality or the manner in which they are offered.

Implications for Businesses

This policy update marks a substantial shift in Brazil’s trademark landscape and opens new avenues for companies previously unable to secure trademark protection for their slogans. Businesses with pending applications or previously rejected trademark requests now have the opportunity to seek reconsideration under these updated criteria.

INPI’s new approach to trademarking advertising slogans aligns with global trends in intellectual property, recognizing the importance of protecting brand assets that resonate uniquely with consumers. This change enables companies to better safeguard distinctive expressions that support their brand identity, marking a notable advancement in Brazil’s trademark policy.

In a public seminar on October 30, 2024, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) announced a change in its interpretation of Article 124, item VII, of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (BIPL) – Law 9.279/96. This amendment will permit the registration of certain slogans as trademarks, a shift from the BPTO’s previous stance, which prohibited the registration of purely advertising expressions.

Historically, the BPTO has refused registration for phrases that serve solely an advertising function, without any distinguishing purpose to identify the origin of a product or service. Under the current interpretation, slogans such as “Amo muito tudo isso,” “So delicious dairy free,” and “Make the impossible possible” were denied, as they were deemed non-distinctive advertising expressions. Phrases that merely promote product qualities, convey a company’s mission or values, or encourage consumer action have been classified as lacking the distinctive function required for trademark status.

With this policy change, however, the BPTO will allow registration of slogans that possess an original and distinctive character, capable of serving as an identifier of product or service origin. Advertising expressions that remain merely descriptive, promotional, or without originality will continue to be refused under Article 124, item VII.

This revision aligns Brazil with many countries where trademark treaties permit slogan registration and reflects the BPTO’s acknowledgment of the growing importance of originality in brand expressions. Additionally, it recognizes the challenges companies face in protecting slogans through other legal means.

The new policy will take effect on November 27, 2024, and will apply to both new applications and those currently under review. Companies are strongly encouraged to consider registering their distinctive slogans to safeguard against potential third-party claims and ensure the exclusive right to use their unique brand expressions.

McCoy Russell is prepared to support its clients should this change impact their trademark strategies and portfolios. Contact us if we can be of assistance.

Bringing over two decades of expertise in trademark practice, McCoy Russell serves start-ups and iconic brands alike. The firm has developed cornerstones in well-known mark protection to trade dress and product configuration, as well as worldwide portfolio development and management as a part of its Trademark practice approach.

One of McCoy Russell’s key strengths lies in the development and implementation of a global protection and enforcement strategy for famous trademarks, leveraging the benefits of their extra protection. Clients appreciate the firm’s streamlined and cost-effective approach in establishing, maintaining, and defending well-known and famous mark status. McCoy Russell has actively contributed to the Famous and Well-Known Mark Committee for the International Trademark Association (INTA) for several years.

Trade dress is a significant focus for McCoy Russell, recognizing it as a valuable branding asset. The firm has extensive experience in developing and procuring global trade dress and product configuration protection. McCoy Russell has successfully aided in establishing product configuration protection for renowned consumer products both in the US and internationally, offering strategic counsel with a commitment to cost-effectiveness.

The firm’s trademark practice encompasses a wide array of services, including trademark searches, brand analysis, trademark filings, preparation of tiered strategic worldwide filing recommendations, brand due diligence, IP audits, review of branding agreements, assignments, renewals, in-house trademark training, and customs registrations. McCoy Russell is dedicated to pursuing filings and enforcement in over 130 countries, collaborating seamlessly with a network of trusted IP colleagues.

McCoy Russell continues to strengthen its Trademark and Branding specialty with active exposure to diverse perspectives, regulatory updates, and collaborative efforts with industry experts through volunteering in INTA. Please contact us at [email protected] if you think we can be of assistance.

In the realm of intellectual property (IP), businesses rely on many forms of protection to safeguard their innovations. Trade secrets and patents both serve critical roles in protecting valuable assets, but they differ in terms of application, longevity, and enforcement.

Trade secrets protect confidential business information that gives a company a competitive advantage, such as proprietary formulas, techniques, or processes. One major benefit is their indefinite protection, as long as the information remains secret. Unlike patents, trade secrets don’t require a formal application, making them a cost-effective and immediate option. However, if the information is disclosed, either intentionally or through misappropriation, the protection is lost. Additionally, proving theft of trade secrets may be challenging in legal disputes.

Patents provide exclusive rights to an invention, typically for 20 years from the filing date. These rights are granted for inventions that meet specific criteria: they must be novel, non-obvious, and useful. While patents offer strong protection and the potential for monetization through licensing, the process is lengthy and expensive. Once a patent expires, the invention becomes part of the public domain.

Navigating the decision between trade secrets and patents requires careful consideration of the business’s unique needs. McCoy Russell has the experience and expertise to help businesses evaluate these options and develop a tailored IP protection strategy and protect their intellectual property portfolios. Through educational trainings and expert guidance, businesses can maximize the value of their innovations and maintain a competitive edge.