Archive for the ‘Intangible Assets’ Category

Can consumers confuse a pickup truck with a formula 1 car?

Thursday, February 10th, 2011

That is the underlying question the recent trademark rights enforcement action from Ford [News Report], the source of the “F150” pickup truck, against Ferrari, the source of the “F150” F1 car (since 1975). Ferrari’s F1 cars have always been numbered progressively, 2010’s car was the “F40”, but this year is the 150th anniversary of Italy’s re-unification, so the full name of the car is “Ferrari F150th Italia” [Ferrari Statement]

The USPTO has been reluctant to grant trademark rights for some less well-known automotive model designations. The TTAB Blog reported in 2009, for example, that Acura failed in getting “Acura TL” registered as a mark in part because, in commerce (on the back of those cars), the make and the model designations do not appear “next” to each other (“Acura” is on the left side of the trunk lid, “TL” on the right side). However, the purpose of trademark law is to protect consumers from confusing one source of goods/services from others and, by the same token, prevent some commercial interest to “ride the coat tails” of another. So, how is the 2011 season Ferrari Formula 1 car, which is not sold to anyone, going to confuse any consumers of the Ford pick-up truck?

F150 badges

F150 badges from the complaint

Going over the trademark dilution, infringement, false designation of origin, and cyberpiracy complaint filed yesterday (February 9, 2011) before the US District Court (Eastern District of Michigan Case: 4:11-cv-10518-MAG-PJK) it is striking how the key claim reads:

Ferrari has misappropriated the F-150® trademark in naming its new racing vehicle the “F150” in order to capitalize on and profit from the substantial goodwill that Ford has developed in the F-150® trademark, and in order to trade off of Ford’s famous and winning trademark…Although Ferrari asserts that the naming of the “F150” is to honor the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the unification of Italy, the objective evidence demonstrates that Ferrari is seeking to misappropriate the substantial goodwill that Ford has developed in the famous F-150® trademark.

F-150 and F150

The Tough F-150® and the elitist F150th Italia

Ford also seems to be concerned not simply with the potential competition between the truck and the F1 car, but points repeatedly to the F-150® apparel merchandising registration. Furthermore, the indignation reaches its peak as:

“…the elitist Ferrari “F150” tarnishes the BUILT FORD TOUGH® F-150® brand.

F1 fans make light of the situation, and NASCAR Camping World Truck Series fans can be offended over the tarnishment, the suit is not without its interesting points. First of all, trademark owners do have to police their brands and show they do exercise control over the use of their marks and litigate infringement. But, although it is early to know how this case will be resolved, it could be enlightening to examine how courts typically determine the key concept of the “likelihood of confusion.”

The most frequently used checklist of factors is as follows:

  • Whether or not the goods or services using the same mark compete with one another. – In this case the autos do not compete, and only at some abstract level merchandising and licensed apparel are substitutes as apparel per se, but not as the distinctive branding devices for their consumers (Ford acknowledges the elitist/tough distinction).
  • Whether or not the goods or services are being marketed through the same channels of distribution. – They are clearly not using the same channels for the vehicles, and the merchandise sales occur at different events. However, the ecommerce brings a potentially confusing channel, if all you are searching for is an F-150 cap, your search engine may accidentally direct you to the www.ferrarif150.com website and lead to a purchase of the wrong brand. That is where Ford’s claim of cyberpiracy comes in.
  • Whether or not the alleged infringer intended to trade on the plaintiff’s business good will. – This is literally Ford’s initial claim, but it is hard to argue that the “tough” brand image has created such a strong following for anything labeled F-150 that truckers will be led to replace their blue oval gear with red prancing horse apparel.
  • Whether the marks are similar in appearance, phonetic sound, or meaning. – Here is the strongest claim for Ford, except for meaning as it could lead to a survey duel in court if you ask “people-on-the-street” what F150 means to them.
  • How careful the consumer is likely to be prior to purchasing. – Buyer sophistication and disparity of price points clearly would not support a confusion argument. Only a handful of F1 collectors will ever buy a Ferrari F1 car, and truck buyers know if they are seeing a tough truck or a wimpy and elitist set of wheels. Again, the battle is only possible among merchandising and t-shirts that only use the F150 designation, not any imagery of the cars, the brand colors, or the merchandise materials themselves.
  • Whether or not the companies are accessing overlapping customer bases. – There will be plenty of material as to why the likelihood of Ferrari F1 fans being the core Ford F150 demographic is low to negligible.
  • The legal strength of each of the marks. – Again, while it is likely that a majority of truck consumers know the basic Ford pickup directly as an “F-150®”, most fans will still refer to the “Ferrari” car and only refer to the F150 designation in comparisons with prior models.
  • Finally, whether there has been any actual confusion. This is obviously going to be fact based but, again, the smoking gun will be that a trucker looking for an F-150® cap would go to the ferrari150.com site to order it (Except the site has been parked while the suit is pending).

We await with interest the response from Ferrari, but this is looking more and more like a quick settlement. But, who knows, Ford may still resent Commendatore Ferrari not wanting to sell the iconic brand back in the mid-sixties (which initially led to Ford’s development of the Ford GT40 to win at Le Mans).

Patent Value Guide – Part II

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011
By: Fernando Torres, MSc

In our intellectual property valuation practice, we are often asked by patentees how they can get a proverbial back-of-the-envelope assessment of the value of their patents. What at first blush sounds like a reasonable request, its proper answer is not as easy as most would like to think. In this continuing series of blog posts, I will strive to address the question from a practical perspective. In the end, I believe we shall see that not only is there no simple answer, but the question might not be the right one to begin with.

General Principle No. 2

“A patent’s use is a key arbiter of its economic value”

Patents can have several uses in practice, and each alternative brings characteristics and contextual parameters that affect economic value in specific ways. Once a patent holder is in possession of an issued patent it can be put to economic use in at least one of the following ways:

  • INTERNAL – The patent holder may make use of the patent internally in an existing business (or firm). The patent may cover a specific aspect or an improvement of the manufacturing process use in the firm, or it might cover a specific feature of a product. In addition, the patent could be a method patent and claim a specific mode of operating the business, or implementing a procedure in software for example. Internal users typically supplement new patents with existing resources, trade secrets, and knowledge assets to put them in practical use. For example, Apple, Inc regularly obtains patents on its own future product designs or for product features that it plans to incorporate into its products [See e.g. the Patently Apple Blog].
  • LICENSING – The patent holder may focus on licensing the patent to third parties, with the goal of developing a royalty income stream by relying on the licensees to bring together any additional resources to practice the claimed invention. IBM has been granted more patents than any other US company during each year since 1993 [IBM Patent Licensing]. It maintains a broad portfolio of patents in the computer industry specializing in the areas of display, storage, network computing and software. Yet, IBM does not manufacture products in these areas anymore; it licenses its technologies to third parties that do engage in manufacturing. One technique increasingly used to establish a licensing program has been the threat of litigation. This strategy has been the choice for companies described as “non-practicing entities” or, less charitably, as “patent trolls.”
  • BLOCKING – The patent holder might not use the process, manufacture a product, or license third parties, but rather hold on to it in order to block competitors from developing specific products or benefiting from some innovations. This use is typically not publicized for obvious reasons, but imagine a car manufacturer had been the first to patent fuel injectors but did not use them in their vehicles nor licensed them. The competition would have to continue using carburetor-based engines as long as the threat of patent infringement was perceived as real, and the patent-holding car company could buy a head start in developing a better fuel injection system for the future, thus staying two-steps away from the competition.
  • MIXED LICENSING – A patentee could have a patent on, for example, a way of compressing and decompressing video to facilitate its transmission over the Internet. The main way in which it can profit from this is if the whole industry uses it and, specifically, if it licenses everyone to use it (even at very low royalties) along with its own internal use.
  • CROSS-LICENSING – In many industries that are host to active patenting, such as telecommunications or pharmaceutical research, patent holders often use patents as bartering pieces to cancel out the threat of infringement litigation form competitors, by licensing some of their patents to the holders of patents it needs to compete, or is likely to be found infringing. A case in point is a recent agreement [Cross-Licensing Report] whereby Intel Corp. (the company famous for its microprocessors) received a license to Nvidia Corp.’s patents, while Nvidia (the company famous for its graphics processors) got a license to some of Intel’s patents, thus resolving outstanding litigation between them. As part of the deal, Intel will pay Nvidia $1.5 Billion in royalties over the next five years.
  • SLEEPING or SUBMARINE PATENTS – Sometimes, patent holders do not apply, license, cross license, or litigate their patents; they lie in wait until a suitable target appears, or they are simply shelved (sometimes forgotten) as a consequence of an overly active patenting drive or bad management.

How the actual pool of patents is divided among these uses is hard to ascertain. Nevertheless, relatively recent survey data from the European Commission indicates that the most frequent use is Internal, at 51%, followed by blocking, at 19% (See Chart below) [2005 Patent Study Report].

Patents and their uses

Chart 1: Patents and their uses

From the same European source, we have found that the distribution of the value of patents differs for its different uses (See next Chart). Relative to the value of the average patent surveyed, the most valuable uses by far are, not surprisingly, internal use and cross-licensing. Both of these uses allow patent holders to opewrate in a more profitable protected environment. Blocking, while popular and profitable, is a slightly inferior use of a patent because, one may expect, competitors invest in non-infringing alternatives and defeat the purpose of blocking. The other licensing uses are naturally less valuable than average because licensing involves sharing a portion of the incremental profits with the licensees. It is no surpise, finally, that Sleeping patents are the least valuable.

Patent values and uses

Chart 2: Patent values and uses

In conclusion, from the perspective explored in this post, a follow-up question to correctly approach the valuation of new patent would be simliar to: What is the intended strategic use of the patent?

______________

You can follow the rest of The Patent Value Guide on its dedicated website (www.PatentValueGuide.com) and continue to read up on patents and other Intellectual Property valuation topics on the IPmetrics® Blog.