by Tamera H. Bennett
September 14, 2007
Lance Armstrong Foundation, Inc. filed suit in the Western District of Texas (Austin) for trademark infringement against Oklahoma Animal Charity Collar Group, Inc. for its PURRSTRONG and BARKSTRONG animal collars.
Armstrong’s foundation is the owner of the LIVESTRONG trademark for wristbands and fundraising. The LIVESTRONG mark was first used in interstate commerce in December 2003 and Armstrong’s foundation secured a federal trademark registration on January 31, 2006. Armstrong’s foundation has 15 registered/pending trademark applications related primarily in classes 14 (jewelry) and 36 (fundraising).
Pursuant to the complaint filed on September 11, 2007, Animal Charity Collar Group, Inc. approached Armstrong’s foundation for a license and made an in person proposal on July 29, 2005. The proposal was denied.
In addition to using the trademarks PURRSTRONG and BARKSTRONG, Defendant Animal Charity uses the marks on yellow collars embossed in a similar fashion as the LIVESTRONG wristbands. Chris Ohman, the sole owner of Animal charity, filed trademark applications for PURRSTRONG, BARKSTRONG, CAN YOUR DOG BARKSTRONG?, CAN YOUR CAT PURRSTRONG?
Evidently the trademark examiners at the USPTO are not seeing the confusion. The PURRSTRONG application for pet collars registered on April 3, 2007. To further muddy the waters at the USPTO, there is another filing for BARKSTRONG and PURRSTRONG filed by a third party. All of these marks are currently in suspension. It does not look as if they are suspended because of the LIVESTRONG marks, but rather waiting on Ohman’s marks to move toward registration.
Whose mark is “strongest?” We shall see.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:23 am
FACTS:
The USPTO has issued PURRSTRONG to Chris Ohman as a registered Trademark. BARKSTRONG was given a notice of allowance until the LAF decided to file a opposition which does not change our authority to use the mark in commerce.
The USPTO has issued a notice of allowance for our Patent on the collar design. We expect two more Patent’s to be issued shortly. Our Patent includes LIVESTRONG and we have not granted permission to anyone to use it, nor do we intend to use it. We in essence are protecting the LAF.
We have been negotiating with the DLA Piper (LAF counsel) and stand firm in our right to pursue this venture and support animal welfare. Support from our customers has been overwhelming.
Please see attached press release.
Chris M. Ohman
CEO
Animal Charity Collar Group
____________________________
LANCE ARMSTRONG FOUNDATION THREATENS TO SUE ANIMAL CHARITY GROUP
Is LAF spending money on lawyers instead of research?
Animal Charity Collar Group a Tulsa based company faces a dilemma with the threat of a lawsuit from the Lance Armstrong Foundation. In July of 2005 Chris Ohman, CEO of the Animal Charity Collar Group approached and met with Jeff Manning of the LAF concerning a concept to produce animal collars with the LIVESTRONG trademark. The LAF passed on the idea according to Ohman, “Jeff Manning sited the decision to pass was the LAF thought the idea would dilute the foundation’s mission of human cancer research”.
Prior to his meeting with the Armstrong Foundation Chris Ohman had filed for trademark protection with his own word mark’s, BARKSTRONG and PURRSTRONG (dog’s and cat’s respectively). Ohman further protected his idea with a design patent for pet collars that included both of the Trademark’s he filed for and the LIVESTRONG mark to prevent anyone from infringing on any one or all of the trademarks.
The Tulsa based company; Animal Charity Collar Group has been marketing the collars to raise money for local animal welfare groups. “We have been very well received by the rescue groups and humane societies/SPCA” said Ohman. “The primary goal is to develop a model fund raising program for the animal welfare groups to follow” states Ohman as he explains how the product line is being further developed. Now they are in jeopardy of losing money fighting a lawsuit that could help the animal charities.
Strangely enough the Armstrong Foundation has recently started offering a pet collar on their website. This comes while being “on notice” from the July 05’ meeting with Chris Ohman, of the patent pending status of his idea “which is fact and not disputed”.
The questions arise in how well foundations like the LAF are being run? Is it ethical to promote you mission receiving good will and financial support from the public in your organization but spending valuable resources suing other groups that also try to help others? How willing is the public to support activity and decisions like this?
# # #
If you would like further information about this issue, or to set up a interview with Chris Ohman, please contact (918)-830-0808/ email- sales@barkstrong.net reference: http://www.barkstrong.net
Council for LAF
DLA Piper San Francisco, CA.
(415)-836-2500
May 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
What a jerk. Lance Armstrong’s group obviously had been using it publicly way before this jerk got hold of it and tried to tie up the system with legal stupidity.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I am not sure why this patent was issued. It seems, although it is not totally clear from the info I have been able to see, this item was entered into commerce in 2005. This would start the 1 year rule, and any patent applied for after this 1 year window should be denied as invalid and the invention entered into the public domain. Also, US uses first to invent, not first to file rules, so if any patent was available and the 1 year rule was not in effect, then only the originator of the idea can be awarded the patent. Also, this seems such an obvious novelty. Obvious novelties are not patentable.