Aventura Equities Inc (AVNE)

[hedge_fun]

I just worked on a trademark infringement matter for one of my clients who was required to change her branding identity from [XYZ] even though there were already three variations of [XYZ] that all have registered trademarks. One of the [XYZ] mark owners decided to go after her use of the mark, because the market for her services was deemed to be too similar to the market for their products, even though they had not attempted to preclude the use of the mark by other companies in what also appeared to me to be related areas.

If anyone has a registered mark, legal/civil action against them cannot be sought for infringement. If you check with the USPTO website, there may have been a challenge during opposition period that was denied when any of the 3 (XYZ)'s filed to register.

Your client was "gone after" because she held no legal right to the "mark". A trademark is actually property and it is registered to the OWNER. (see link below) Sometimes registered marks are similar. Sometimes supplemental trademarks are given for differing fields of business with the same mark.

Now as far as SKTO goes, it appears an iEquity subsidiary, MedScience (TM) Laboratories, was being touted as having merged in or something with AVNE. That appears to have been a rumor, so we'll see.

I was simply pointing out that MedScience (TM) Laboratories would be an infringement because MedScience Inc. has a NOA from the USPTO. MedScience (TM) makes allergy medicines, not MMJ alternative medicines. These aren't the same companies.

Like your client, MedScience Inc. could seek an injunction against MedScience Laboratories (iEquity) for infringement because that are being granted the trademark from the USPTO, though it isn't technically registered yet. Regardless, they have the "more legal" right at this point with the NOA.

Finally, as you know, trademark enforcement is a civil matter, so if anyone "smacks down" anyone else for the use of a mark it will be the owner of the registered mark in a private litigation, not the USPTO.

True, but if I used the term "satelliteguy®", I am suggesting that mark is registered with the USPTO. If it isn't, it violates federal trademark regulations. (see below)

In this case iEquity used the "marks" Cannabee® and eJoint® on their website. Check the USPTO website. "Cannabee" has never been applied for and the "eJoint" application was abandoned. They have since changed their website after some of us notified the USPTO, and they now use the (TM) symbol, which is legal. That was the "smackdown". The marks didn't exist. The use of the ® suggest it does.

Here's more from the USPTO about the use of the ?.

Do federal regulations govern the use of the designations "TM" or "SM" or the ® symbol?

If you claim rights to use a mark, you may use the "TM" (trademark) or "SM" (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim of a “common-law” mark. No registration is necessary to use a "TM" or "SM" symbol and you may continue to use these symbols even if the USPTO refuses to register your mark. Those symbols put people on notice that you claim rights in the mark, although common law doesn't give you all the rights and benefits of federal registration.

You may only use the federal registration symbol "®" after the USPTO actually registers a mark, not while an application is pending. And it may only be used on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the federal trademark registration and while the registration is still alive (you may not continue to use it if you don’t maintain the registration or it expires). Although there are no specific requirements on where the symbol should be placed relative to the mark, most businesses use the symbol in the upper right corner of the mark. Note: Because several foreign countries use “®” to indicate that a mark is registered in that country, use of the symbol by the holder of a foreign registration may be proper.

http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426682

Hope this clarified my points.