Amazon Wants Sellers to Add Trademarks—and Lawyers—to Their Cart
Earlier this month, Amazon launched an IP accelerator to help connect small and midsized business interested in registering for trademarks with a pre-vetted network of law firms. But whether or not this has more value beyond Amazon remains to be seen.
October 15, 2019 at 07:00 AM
4 minute read
Retail giant Amazon launched a new intellectual property (IP) accelerator at the start of October geared toward pairing small to midsized businesses with the legal expertise needed to maneuver the trademark filing process. However, don't count on it becoming an industrywide trend in the e-commerce space just yet.
The basic premise behind Amazon's accelerator is simple: Companies will be able to choose from a pre-arranged network of law firms that have agreed to provide their services for a locked-in rate.
There's a chance that Amazon is hoping that a preponderance of registered trademarks will act as something as a scarecrow in its extensive online marketplace, which has struggled to combat the presence of knockoff goods. Whether the program has legs beyond that could depend largely on whether or not small companies think it's worth it to invest in a licensed trademark.
"Amazon is not doing this out of the goodness of its heart," said Kenneth Weatherwax, a managing partner at Lowenstein & Weatherwax. "Amazon wants to move products through Amazon. This is in the best interest of Amazon to help its users protect their intellectual property."
To that end, lawyers like Janet Moreira—whose Maven IP counts itself among the accelerator program's network of pre-vetted firms—will provide services that range from investigating brand usage conflicts to filing trademark applications. Amazon, meanwhile, will provide businesses participating in the accelerator program with access to "brand protections" across its stores even before a trademark is officially issued.
"At a minimum, it definitely promotes the protection of intellectual property," Moreira said.
Still, if sellers prove willing to bite the bullet and expend the legal fees necessary to register a trademark, could other e-commerce platforms be tempted to launch their own IP accelerators? Moreira thinks because Amazon casts such a large shadow in the retail world, other vendors will be watching.
"I'm sure other e-commerce platforms will pay more attention to intellectual property," she added.
However, Eric Giler, CEO of the IP protection company Ciprun Global, thinks most e-commerce sites are still trying to keep up with Amazon when it comes to the regular course of business, let alone IP protection efforts.
"I don't see anyone sort of positioned anywhere near similar to Amazon that has the power and the reach necessary to do it," Giler said.
There are potential benefits for sellers who participate in the program beyond Amazon's own reputation or bottom line. Moreira pointed out that protecting and enforcing IP can be more challenging online due to the perception that items such as designs or photographs available on the internet are free for anyone to use.
Young companies also don't do themselves any favors by attempting to undertake the trademark registration process without the aid of counsel, or by simply foregoing it altogether.
"There are some mistakes that can fixed during the application process, but most cannot," Moreira explained.
Brian Michalek, an IP attorney with Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, echoed some of those sentiments. He said that negating trademark due diligence can come back to haunt companies further down the road if they discover that another entity has already laid claim to a similar name or product.
"Because now it costs a lot of money to change in midstride after you've started developing customer channels and things like that," Michalek said.
However, while registering for a federal trademark likely can't hurt a small or medium-sized business, it also may not be strictly necessary. Weatherwax noted that trademarks exist under common law, meaning that it starts when a mark or property is used in commerce for the first time.
Still, by incentivizing sellers to formally register for a federal trademark, Amazon may be hedging its own bets. "[Federally registered trademarks] improves enforcement, but maybe what Amazon is thinking is that would be some indicator of the quality of the trademark. Amazon would simply then not have to take the word of the trademark asserter that it's a good trademark," Weatherwax said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250