<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
			
			<rss version="2.0">
			<channel>
			<title>Filewrapper&#xae; |  A patent, trademark, and copyright law blog by MVS - Geographically descriptive marks</title>
			<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm</link>
			<description>News and Commentary from the world of Intellectual Property Law - The blawg of McKee, Voorhees &amp;amp Sease, P.L.C.</description>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 07:54:51-0500</pubDate>
			<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:10:00-0500</lastBuildDate>
			<generator>BlogCFC</generator>
			<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
			<managingEditor>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</managingEditor>
			<webMaster>Filewrapper@ipmvs.com</webMaster>
			
			
			
			
			
			<item>
				<title>Fourth Circuit:  OBX geographically descriptive with no secondary meaning; noninfringement affirmed</title>
				<link>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2009/3/30/Fourth-Circuit--OBX-geographically-descriptive-with-no-secondary-meaning-noninfringement-affirmed</link>
				<description>
				
				In a decision last month, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/&quot; title=&quot;United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit&quot;&gt;Fourth Circuit&lt;/a&gt;  affirmed a district court&amp;#39;s grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a trademark case.&amp;nbsp; The mark at issue was OBX, which was an acronym coined to be short for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Banks&quot;&gt;Outer Banks&lt;/a&gt;  area of North Carolina.&amp;nbsp; The plaintiff coined the acronym and sold various products bearing the acronym.&amp;nbsp; Over time, the public began using the acronym as shorthand for the geographic region in North Carolina. &amp;nbsp;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The district court, examining the extensive evidence in the record that the public associated OBX with the region rather than with a particular provider of goods or services, granted summary judgment of noninfringement to the defendant, who sold goods bearing the mark &amp;quot;OB Xtreme.&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; The Fourth Circuit affirmed, noting that while the plaintiff did spend a substantial amount of money on advertising, there was simply no evidence in the record that consumers associated OBX with anything other than the region.&amp;nbsp; This was the plaintiff&amp;#39;s owner&amp;#39;s intent:&amp;nbsp; he &amp;quot;intended solely that OBX become associated with and descriptive of a geographical location, the Outer Banks,&amp;quot; and affixed the OBX letters &amp;quot;not to label an OBX brand product produced by [the plaintiff], but to indicate an association with the Outer Banks.&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; Accordingly, there was no evidence of secondary meaning, and the trademark claims failed as a matter of law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;More detail of &lt;em&gt;OBX-Stock, Inc. v. Bicast, Inc.&lt;/em&gt; after the jump.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
				 [More]
				</description>
						
				
				<category>Geographically descriptive marks</category>				
				
				<category>Descriptive marks</category>				
				
				<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:10:00-0500</pubDate>
				<guid>http://www.Filewrapper.com/index.cfm/2009/3/30/Fourth-Circuit--OBX-geographically-descriptive-with-no-secondary-meaning-noninfringement-affirmed</guid>
				
			</item>
			
		 	
			</channel></rss>