David F. Gomez
David Gomez represents clients in trademark, copyright, patent and other intellectual property disputes.
View the full bio for David F. Gomez at the Faegre Drinker website.
Posts by David F. Gomez
With the widespread availability of domain registration and hosting services and the advent of low-cost generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) software, the creation of fraudulent websites has never been easier—or more convincing. With little more effort than a few prompts of an AI program, scammers are able to quickly set up seemingly legitimate websites with text, images, and even video that can look and sound like the real thing. Online consumers, even those savvy enough to recognize your typical email phishing scam, may be fooled by professional-looking websites imitating existing businesses and organizations for less than savory reasons.
For brand owners, the consequences of these imitators can be myriad, including a loss of brand control, irate consumers looking for someone to blame, and ultimately a hit to your bottom line. Indeed, according to the FBI’s 2023 Internet Crime Report, Americans reported over $7.5 billion in losses stemming from intellectual property-related cybercrimes in 2023, up from 2022. Adding to this problem is the fact enforcing your rights against scammer sites can be costly and time-consuming. Scammers themselves are often anonymous and unsurprisingly unlikely to make themselves readily identifiable or easy to track down. Domain registrars and web hosts may require brand owners to navigate byzantine reporting channels in order to flag problematic conduct. And the resources required attempting to litigate every offending domain in court can make it an untenable option for many.
Continue reading “Hoisting Scammers with Their Own Petard with the UDRP”
Personal 3D printing has seen leaps in advancement in recent years, allowing users to render increasingly sophisticated creations from the comfort of their own home. These creations can include anything from gaming miniatures to medical devices, often for pennies on the dollar. With these advancements, however, comes a growing need for intellectual property owners to actively protect their property through trademark and copyright registrations.
To provide a general overview, modern 3D printing typically begins with the creation of an “STL,” a computer file containing information on the model to be printed. This model can be sculpted via computer aided design (“CAD”) software. 3D scanners, which can provide three-dimensional scans of existing physical objects, can also provide a foundation for shaping realistically sculpted CAD models. For example, a sculptor looking to print a miniature of their favorite sports car may scan a toy model to work on in CAD rather than recreate every detail from scratch. The CAD model is then exported into an STL file. “Slicing” software then converts the STL into instructions for the 3D printer to create the actual model. This is done by stacking thousands of thin layers of the printing material, often plastic or resin, atop each other until the particular component is complete—much like how a stack of paper can form a cube, but molded into virtually any shape imaginable. Users can then easily share these STLs online, including through a variety of popular sites that make such files available for free or for purchase.
Continue reading “Why 3D Printing Doesn’t Have to be a Pandora’s Box for IP Rights”
You’ve done the work of securing a federal trademark registration and now face the matter of enforcement against a potential infringer. Are the classes and goods specified in that registration now a double-edged sword?
Say your business, Company A, sells a premium line of clothing for chefs, widely recognized in the restaurant industry for both its durability and stylish design. You’ve worked hard to build the brand and made sure to protect its reputation by registering Company A’s trademarks with the USPTO—in particular, Class 25 for clothing. Much to your dismay, however, a customer has brought to your attention Company B’s new line of kitchen utensils that uses a conspicuously similar name and logo. While initially sold at retail outlets, this new line of cutlery has grown in popularity with some of the nation’s top restaurants. When you reach out to Company B for an explanation, they direct you to your own now-glaring lack of any registration for goods in Class 21 for household utensils. Your brand, despite taking the cooking world by storm, is not quite famous enough to pursue a dilution claim. Are you out of luck in pursuing a claim for infringement?
Continue reading “Cross-Class Confusion: Your Rights are Stronger than You Might Think!”
The basic premise that a generic term is un-registrable is, at first glance, uncontroversial. If a key purpose of a trademark is to identify a particular source of goods or services, then it stands to reason that one cannot obtain a trademark registration for the name of that very category of goods or services. For example, it’s unlikely one could register the mark “Books” for a bookstore, or “Groceries” for a supermarket—doing so would effectively grant the owner a monopoly on the use of those very terms. But what if those ostensibly generic terms were part of a website domain?
Continue reading “The Future of the “Generic.com” Trademark”
