IPfever

Atlanta law firm for global business

Author: Young Jeon, Esq.

  • 상표 등록 시 AI 사용 – 전문가 조언

    상표 등록 시 AI 사용 – 전문가 조언

    AI 이용 시에는 프롬프트(유저가 입력하는 배경지식 및 질문)가 중요하다고들 하죠. ChatGPT 나 Gemini 등에게 추구하는 브랜드 이미지와 상품의 특징, 타겟 소비자 층에 대한 자세한 정보를 공유하면, AI가 적당한 이름을 추천하는 것부터 시작해, 미국 상표 등록에 관련한 이슈까지 자세히 안내해 줍니다.

    제가 사용하는 Gemini를 기준으로 AI는 실시간 상표등록 정보를 확인할 수 있고, 미특허청의 상표심사지침(TMEP)을 근거로 매우 유용한 의견을 제공해 줄 수 있습니다.

    다만 몇 가지 한계가 존재합니다.

    첫째로, LLM의 특성 상 텍스트를 기반으로 데이터베이스를 검색하기 때문에 상표 이미지(그림이나 기타 디자인 특징)에 대한 검색이 미흡할 수 있습니다.

    둘째로, 소비자(심사관)의 주관이 크게 작용하는 유사 상표와의 혼동 가능성 등 이슈에 대해서는 신뢰도가 떨어질 수 있습니다.

    셋째로, 유저 프롬프트의 중요성 입니다. ChatGPT나 Gemini를 상표 검토에 사용하는 사용자는 전체 사용인구에 비해 극소수에 불과합니다. 이 때문에 AI를 상표 검토에 활용하려면, 기본적으로 정확한 의도와 목적을 설명(e.g. Be my assistance in preparing a DIY trademark application for TRADEMARK to be used in association with GOODS/SERVICES)하고, 필요에 따라 어떠한 부분(e.g. please perform a freshness check on the phonetically similar trademarks)을 중점적으로 검토할 지 알려주는 등, 지속적인 피드백으로 정확한 결론에 도달하기 위한 프롬프팅 과정이 필수적 입니다.

    마지막으로, AI를 활용하다가 보면 AI가 말도 안되는 결론을 얼마나 그럴듯하게 설명해 줄 수 있는지에 놀라신 적 있을 겁니다.

    이를 극복하기 위해서 AI 에게 두번, 세번 유사한 프롬프팅 과정을 반복해 보시길 권유 드립니다. AI는 하나의 세션 중간에 방향성이 한번 틀어지면, 그 잘못된 결론에 파묻히는 경향이 있습니다. 즉, 창을 한번 닫고 새로운 창을 열지 않는 한, 한번 내린 잘못된 결론을 스스로 정정하지 못한다는 뜻입니다. 법적인 지식이 없는 일반 유저에게 치명적인 문제점이 될 수 있으므로 꼭 주의가 필요합니다.

    이상으로 상표 등록과 관련해 AI를 사용 시 주의점에 대해 알아 보았습니다.

  • 온라인 마켓플레이스 소송

    아마존이나 월마트와 같은 온라인 마켓플레이스의 등장으로 소자본으로 창업내지는 부업을 하시는 분들이 많아졌습니다. 이와 함께 특허/상표/저작권 침해 소송에 휘말리는 경우도 자주 발생하고 있습니다.

    워낙 규모가 작다 보니 별일이나 있을까 하다가, 자택이나 직장 혹은 개인 이메일로 날라오는 소송장을 받아보고 놀라는 경우가 많은데요. 특히 소송이 처음인 경우 어떤 것을 기대해야 할지, 어떤 식으로 접근해야 할지 막막한 경우가 대부분 입니다.

    특히 온라인 마켓플레이스 셀러를 대상으로 한 소송은 다수의 소규모 업체를 대상으로 하기 때문에 아무래도 일반적인 소송과 다른 특징이 나타납니다. 아래의 슬라이드 내용을 2-3분만 공부하셔도 큰 도움이 되리라 믿습니다.

    어려운 일이 생겼을 때는 어려움을 나눌 한 사람, 말 한마디가 한 없이 소중해 지기 마련입니다. 혼자 끙끙 앓지 마시고, 주변에 고민을 나누시기 바래요. 다만, 주변에 이런 소송을 전문으로 하는 변호사가 있지 않는 한, 절대 정답을 기대하시면 안 됩니다.

  • So You’ve Been Sued. How to Actually Get Out of the Lawsuit

    So You’ve Been Sued. How to Actually Get Out of the Lawsuit

    Getting hit with a lawsuit is a nightmare for any online seller. One day your account is frozen, your funds are locked, and you’re facing a legal battle in a court hundreds of miles away.

    Sometimes, you can’t even start negotiating because the plaintiff’s attorney won’t pick up the phone. And even after you agree to a settlement, the process isn’t over.

    Here is how to navigate the final steps to make sure you actually get your business back.

    (1) When to consider settlement?

    The cheapest way out is almost always a quick settlement. Don’t drag your feet. Settling early saves you thousands in attorney’s fees later.

    The elephant in the room: How do you know the settlement is fair? Usually, in these high-volume cases (where a plaintiff sues a plethora of online sellers), a “fair” settlement is one that costs less than the legal fees you’d pay to fight it. You’ll know a reasonable offer when the numbers finally make sense for your business to move on.

    (2) The “Waiting Game”

    In a high-volume case, it can be hard to grab the attention of the plaintiff’s attorney. Making it worse, in addition to due dates, courts often have “status dates” on the calendar where everyone is required to show up or file a report.

    Your headache isn’t over until the case is dismissed and the account freeze is gone. Even after a judge signs off on the settlement, the plaintiff’s lawyer still needs to follow up with the marketplace (Amazon, Walmart, etc.) to unfreeze your account.

    In all fairness, you can’t just sit and wait.

    (3) Applying Pressure

    Use the leverage of court filings—like motions or status reports—to make their life harder if they ignore you. They weaponized the lawsuit first; now it’s your turn to return the favor.

    3 Tips Every Seller Should Know

    1. Paying is only half the job

    Don’t assume that because you sent a wire transfer, you’re safe. You need to see a final order from the Judge. Until that “Dismissal Order” is signed, you are still technically being sued.

    2. Don’t ignore the “Local Rules”

    Every court has “Local Rules” that can trip you up. For example, many courts require you to report who actually owns your company at the very beginning of a case. Making sure your lawyer handles these administrative steps early on protects you from extra fees or delays later.

    3. Use the Court to push the Plaintiff

    If the people who sued you are taking forever to respond to your emails or phone calls, give them a reason to act. Teasing a motion for anything that forces them to spend time answering can be very effective. When it becomes more “expensive” for them to ignore you, they will move fast.

    The Bottom Line

    Closing a lawsuit is about staying organized. You need a paper trail that proves you paid, proves the other side was notified, and proves to the Judge that you followed all the rules. Don’t stop until the Judge signs the final paper.

  • 의뢰인 정보

      연락처



      고객정보
















      담당 변호사 요청에 따라 법인등기나 사업자등록증을 공유해 주세요.

      법인등기가 되지 않은 회사(DBA)의 경우, 회사정보 외에 사업주 본인의 정보도 필요합니다.









    • In re Restaurant Concept Management, LLC

      Non-precedential opinion of TTAB for proceeding No 98051196 and 98051234

      A copy of the opinion (downloadable at https://ttab-reading-room.uspto.gov) should be appended to the motion or brief. TBMP §101.03(a)(2).

      (1) Holding The Board reversed the refusal to register

      • SIDECAR SLIDER BAR (standard character mark, with “SLIDER BAR” disclaimed)
      • US Serial No. 98051234 (with “SLIDER BAR” disclaimed)

      for “Bar services; Catering services; Restaurant services; Restaurant services, including sit-down service of food and take-out restaurant services”.

      (2) Procedural History The Examining Attorney refused registration for both marks, citing a likelihood of confusion with:

      • SIDECAR (standard character mark) for “Restaurant services; Coffee shop services” and
      • SIDECAR SOCIAL (standard character mark) and a composite mark featuring the same words, for “Bar services ancillary to entertainment services”.

      (3) Issues [Likelihood of Confusion]

      (4) Rationales The TTAB reversed the refusal despite finding the applied-for services are identical or encompassed by the registered-for and thereby presumed to be provided through the same trade channels because (1) [Conceptual Weakness] “Sidecar” is a dictionary term that is highly suggestive of a cocktail served in bars and restaurants; (2)[Commercial Weakness] the Applicant provided extensive evidence of over 33 third-party uses of “SIDECAR” (e.g., SIDECAR BAR, THE SIDECAR BAR & GRILLE, SIDECAR LOUNGE) in connection with restaurant, bar, and related services; and (3) [Dissimilarity of the Marks] the Board found that Applicant’s marks are sufficiently dissimilar from the cited marks due to the addition of “SLIDER BAR”.

      Conclusion: The Board concluded that while the services are identical or closely related, the dissimilarity of the marks—driven by the conceptual and commercial weakness of “SIDECAR” and the distinguishing additional elements in Applicant’s marks—is sufficient to prevent a likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the refusals were reversed.

    • 미국 상표 – Generic (보통명사)

      상표로 등록할 수 없는 것 중에 하나가 보통명사입니다.

      보통명사를 상표 등록할 수 없는 이유

      상표는 여러 회사에서 생산 및 제공하는 제품이나 서비스를 구분하기 위해 생겨난 개념이므로, 제품이나 서비스를 일반적으로 지칭하는 보통명사는 상표로 사용할 수 없습니다.

      예를 들어, 한 회사가 ‘컴퓨터’를 컴퓨터 상표로 등록한다면, 다른 모든 업체는 컴퓨터를 지칭할 다른 말을 찾아야 할 겁니다. 이런 불합리한 번거로움을 피하기 위해서 보통명사는 상표로 사용할 수 없습니다.

      상표가 보통명사가 된다?

      대표적으로 ‘아스피린’ 같은 경우, 독일 제약회사 베이어에서 처음 개발한 성분 아세틸살리실산를 해열제로 판매하기 위해 만든 상표명이지만 많은 사람들이 해당 성분 자체를 아스피린이라고 부르기 시작하면서 상표로서의 가치를 잃게 된 경우입니다.

      크리넥스 같은 경우도 비슷한 전철을 밟을 뻔 했지만, 제조업체이자 상표권자인 킴벌리-클라크에서 열심히 노력한 끝에 이제는 box tissue 라는 말이 자리잡아 Kleenex 는 상표로 인정받을 수 있었습니다.

      한국에서 상표가 보통명사가 된 예는 벨크로입니다. 요즘은 찍찍이라는 말을 많이 쓰지만 벨크로를 상표로 인식하는 사람은 거의 없죠.

      보통명사를 상표로 사용할 수 있는 경우

      보통명사라 할 지라도 전혀 상관이 없는 제품이나 서비스에는 상표로 사용할 수 있습니다. 유명한 예로, 사과를 뜻하는 ‘애플’이라는 보통명사를 컴퓨터 및 전자기기를 위한 상표로 사용하고 있는 예가 있죠.

      이렇게 보통명사를 전혀 의외의 제품이나 서비스에 상표로 사용할 경우, 소비자들이 외우기 쉬울 뿐 아니라 친근한 이미지를 주기 때문에 긍정적인 경우가 많습니다.

      좋은 상표는 등록 가능한 상표가 아니라, 등록도 가능한 상표라는 점 잊지마세요!

    • Proximo Spirits, Inc. v. West Road Spirits LLC

      Non-precedential opinion of TTAB for proceeding No. 92080766 in 2025

      A copy of the opinion (downloadable at https://ttab-reading-room.uspto.gov) should be appended to the motion or brief. TBMP §101.03(a)(2).

      (1) Holding The Board denied the Petition to Cancel the registration for the mark SEXTO.

      (2) Procedural History The Petitioner, Proximo Spirits, Inc., sought to cancel the registration for the standard character mark SEXTO for “alcoholic beverages, except beer; alcoholic beverages, namely, distilled agave liquor” in International Class 33.

      The Petitioner’s claim was based on its own registered mark, THE SEXTON (in standard characters), for “whiskey” in International Class 33.

      (4) Issues The central issue was whether there was a likelihood of confusion between Petitioner’s mark THE SEXTON and Respondent’s mark SEXTO, as used on their respective alcoholic beverages.

      (5) Rationales The TTAB denied the petition to cancel based on

      • Goods, Channels of Trade, and Consumers: The Board found the goods to be legally identical because the identification “alcoholic beverages, except beer” includes whiskey. The Board also found that distilled agave liquor and whiskey are closely related, as evidenced by third-party registrations and distillery websites offering both under the same marks. Because the goods are identical or closely related, the Board presumed they are sold in the same trade channels and offered to the same classes of consumers. These factors weighed heavily in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
      • Strength of Petitioner’s Mark: The Board found Petitioner’s mark, THE SEXTON, to be both conceptually and commercially strong. The term “sexton” is arbitrary in connection with whiskey, giving it conceptual strength. The evidence also showed commercial strength through significant sales, promotional expenditures, industry awards, and a co-branding partnership with the television show The Walking Dead. This factor weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
      • Dissimilarity of the Marks: The Board concluded that the marks are dissimilar in their overall commercial impression, particularly in their connotation and meaning.
        • Connotation and Meaning: Petitioner’s mark, THE SEXTON, has a specific meaning in English, referring to a church officer or grave digger. This connotation is reinforced by its promotional activities and the word “THE,” which suggests a specific individual. Respondent’s mark, SEXTO, has no understood meaning in English, and in Spanish, it means “sixth”.
        • Appearance: Although SEXTO is only one letter away from SEXTON, the omission of the “N” is significant because consumers are unlikely to perceive it as a misspelling of SEXTON.
        • Sound: The Board found it unlikely that the marks would be pronounced in a similar way.
      • Dissimilarity outweighed other factors: The Board held that the dissimilarity of the marks outweighed the similarities of the goods, trade channels, and the strength of Petitioner’s mark. The differences were “significant” and “substantial,” justifying a conclusion that confusion is unlikely. The Petition to Cancel was therefore denied.

    • 미국 상표 – transliteration (음역), translation (번역)

      Transliteration of Non-Latin Characters and English Translation Required

      한글 상표를 미국에 등록하려면 반드시 transliteration(음역)이 필요한데, 쉽게 생각하면 우리가 apple 을 ‘애플’로 음역하는 것을 반대로 하면 됩니다.

      아무래도 한글/영어가 다 익숙해야 해서, 한국 거주 고객이 한국특허법인 > 미국 대리인을 통해 출원하는 경우나, 미국 거주 고객이 미국 로펌을 통해 제출하는 경우에 거절(Office Action)이 많이 발생합니다.

      음역의 예

      예를 들어, ‘맛의천국’을 음역하면 mot-eui-chun-gook 정도가 되겠죠. 사실 음역에는 정해진 규칙이 있지는 않습니다. 음역은 경쟁사가 이미 등록된 이름을 외국어(예: 나이키)로 음역해 등록하는 걸 방지하는 역할을 합니다.

      눈속임하려는 의도든 아니든, ‘나이키’를 등록하면서 nigh-key 와 같은 음역을 제출할 수도 있겠죠. 하지만 이런 경우에도 심사관이 발음해 보면 유사성을 바로 알아챌 수 있기 때문에 문제가 되지 않습니다.

      음역 기재 방법

      상표출원 시에는 통상 음역과 함께 번역(translation)이 들어갑니다. ‘맛의천국’의 경우 아래와 같습니다.

      The non-Latin characters in the mark transliterate to “mot-eui-chun-gook” and this means “the heaven of taste” in English.

      영어의 음역이 상표인 경우

      간혹 영어를 한글로 적은 상표도 있는데요. 예를 들어, ‘런투유’ 와 같은 상표라면 음역은 ‘run-too-yu’ 로 적고, 번역은 ‘run to you’ 로 적으면 무난합니다.

      한국어의 영문 음역이 상표인 경우

      오두막을 영어로 옮겨 ‘odumak’ 이라는 상표를 등록하고 싶다면, 음역은 따로 필요가 없겠죠. 이 경우, 번역으로 ‘hut’ 정도를 포함하면 됩니다.

      번역이 애매한 경우

      간혹 애매한 경우도 발생하는데, 예를 들어 ‘설매’라는 화장품 브랜드는 사람에 따라서 눈과 매화라는 뜻으로 해석할 수도 있지만 아닐 수도 있죠.

      이때는 향후 마케팅적으로 눈과 매화의 뜻을 포함할지에 따라서 번역을 추가할 수도 아닐 수도 있습니다. 다만, 예를 들어 ‘설매’ 로고에 매화 이미지가 포함되어 있다면 번역은 당연히 포함해야겠죠.

      번역이 필요할 경우, ‘snow plum flower’ 정도의 번역을 포함하면 무난하고, 향후 제3자가 Snowy Plum Blossom’ 과 같은 상표를 등록하지 못하게 하는 효과가 있습니다.

      반대로, 이미 유사한 이름 snowy plum 등 이 화장품으로 등록되어 있다면, 오히려 유사성을 근거로 등록이 거절되는 문제가 발생할 수 있겠죠.

      영문으로 음역하기

      만약 유사한 이름과의 마찰이 우려된다면, 선제적으로 Sulmé 정도로 음역해서 상표 등록을 진행할 수 있습니다.

      이때 한국어에 능통한 사람이라도 Sulmé 라는 이름을 눈과 매화라는 뜻으로 해석하기는 어렵죠. 따라서, 출원 시 번역을 포함할 필요가 없고, 경우에 따라 혹은 심사관의 요청에 따라 “The wording “Sulmé” has no meaning in a foreign language.” 라는 문구를 추가하면 됩니다.

      맺음말

      한글을 등록하려면 문구 자체에 대한 권리를 주장할 수 없고, 무조건 글자체 및 기타 디자인 요소를 포함해 등록하게 됩니다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 한글의 아름다움과 한국 브랜드 정체성을 유지하기 위해 한글 상표의 미국 등록은 늘어나고 있습니다. 적절한 transliteration(음역)과 translation(번역)으로 무탈한 심사통과 뿐 아니라 유사 상표로부터의 보호까지 꼭 챙기시기 바랍니다.

    • In re Ghostwritten LLC

      Non-precedential opinion of TTAB for proceeding No. 98199104 in 2025

      A copy of the opinion (downloadable at https://ttab-reading-room-aws.uspto.gov/cms/rest/legal-proceeding/97344289/decision/EXA_10.pdf) should be appended to the motion or brief. TBMP §101.03(a)(2).

      (1) Holding

      The Board reversed the refusal to register the mark GHOSTWRITTEN INC. because it was not merely descriptive for the Applicant’s services.

      (2) Mark

      The Applicant, Ghostwritten LLC, sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard-character mark GHOSTWRITTEN INC. for numerous services in International Class 41, some of which could be ghostwritten:

      • Educational and entertainment programs accessible via audio, web-based applications, and computer networks (covering daily life, comedy, pop culture, current events, memes, internet videos, and music).
      • Providing websites featuring blogs, non-downloadable podcasts, and videos in various fields like daily life, entertainment, social issues, music, movies, and celebrity news.
      • Providing information in the fields of entertainment and current events.
      • Digital video, audio, and multimedia publishing services, including e-books and electronic publications.
      • Live musical performances, music production, and music publishing services.
      • Entertainment services in the nature of web series and webcasts.
      • Online databases featuring music.
      • Conducting art exhibitions (including NFT art and virtual exhibitions), custom art drawing/sketching, and providing virtual museum services.
      • Film production and multimedia publishing of various media.
      • Providing online non-downloadable virtual clothing, headwear, footwear, eyewear, fashion bags, games, toys, CDs, and DVDs for use in virtual environments for entertainment purposes.

      (3) Procedural History

      The Examining Attorney refused registration on two grounds:

      • Likelihood of Confusion: With four registered marks: GHOSTWRITER (Class 9 – video/DVDs, TV programs), GHOSTWRYTER (Class 41 – music artist/production/live performances), GHOSTWRITER (Class 9 – audio/video recordings, downloadable publications/content), and GHOSTWRITER (Class 16 – printed materials, Class 41 – TV programs, multimedia programs, online information). This ground was withdrawn in the final office action.
      • Mere Descriptiveness: Arguing that GHOSTWRITTEN INC. is merely descriptive of the services because the Applicant provides services related to creative content that could be produced for another who is the presumed or credited creator. The Examining Attorney provided dictionary definitions for “ghostwritten” and Internet evidence showing its common use in creative industries. In the final action, additional evidence was attached to illustrate that blog posts, website content, e-books, and written information are commonly ghostwritten.

      (4) Issues

      Whether the Examining Attorney carried her burden of proving that GHOSTWRITTEN INC. immediately conveys knowledge about a significant feature of Applicant’s services, thereby being merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

      (5) Rationales

      The TTAB reversed the refusal based on the following rationales:

      • Vagueness and Amorphousness: The Board found the term GHOSTWRITTEN INC. to be “too amorphous, nebulous and vague” for consumers to immediately understand it as describing a significant feature of the Applicant’s recited services. The leap between the mark and the services’ attributes is not “almost instantaneous”.
      • Lack of Prevalance in Public Perception: The Examining Attorney’s evidence did not demonstrate that the consuming public would instantaneously perceive GHOSTWRITTEN INC. as describing a key attribute of Applicant’s specific services.
      • Applicant’s Intent to be Confirmed by Statement of Use: Applicant explicitly stated that “none of the services listed in the identification of services are intended to be created for another who is the presumed or credited creator or author”.
      • Third-Party Registrations: The Board noted that four similar “GHOSTWRITER” or “GHOSTWRYTER” marks were registered without overcoming Section 2(e)(1) refusals, even though they covered creative works. This indicated that the Office had taken a different position in the past, supporting the idea that the public does not immediately understand “GHOSTWRITTEN” as descriptive of such services.
      • Suggestive, Not Merely Descriptive: The Board concluded that the mark is, “at worst, ‘suggestive of the services in connection with which it is used’”. Given the difficulty in drawing the line between descriptive and suggestive marks, any doubt was resolved in favor of the Applicant, as the Examining Attorney failed to meet the burden of establishing mere descriptiveness.

    • In re EquipKeyCo, LLC

      Non-precedential opinion of TTAB for proceeding No. 97344289 in 2025

      A copy of the opinion (downloadable at https://ttab-reading-room-aws.uspto.gov/cms/rest/legal-proceeding/97344289/decision/EXA_10.pdf) should be appended to the motion or brief. TBMP §101.03(a)(2).

      Holding

      The board affirmed the disclaimer requirement and preemptively reversed the likelihood of confusion.

      Mark

      EquipKeyCo, LLC (“Applicant”) sought to register for “pre-fabricated metal ignition keys for starting heavy equipment, namely construction and agricultural equipment” in International Class 6.

      Procedural history

      Examiner required a disclaimer of the wording “EQUIP KEY CO” within the mark, arguing that it is merely descriptive of the Applicant’s goods because “EQUIP” is a recognized abbreviation for “equipment”, “KEY” directly refers to the goods (keys), and “CO” is a common abbreviation for “company”.

      Examiner also refused the registration based on the likelihood of confusion because the applied-for mark’s wording, which is a dominant feature, consists of only the entire wording of the cited mark plus a descriptive wording.

      Issues

      1. Isa unitary mark with a nondescript meaning?
      2. Is likely to be confused with for “metal, brass and aluminum key blanks; metal and aluminum key chains; metal and brass locks, lock cylinders, pad locks and door locks” in Class 6?

      Rationales

      1. Finding the wording Equip Key Co is descriptive, the board noted that the composite mark did not create a unitary mark with a non-descriptive meaning because of the capitalization and coloring. The design elements were deemed irrelevant to the descriptiveness of the wording itself.
      2. The Board found similarity in goods and shared channels, and it doubted the equipment purchasers, however sophisticated, would exercise the same degree of care for small, inexpensive items like keys. Nevertheless, the board found that the words Key and Co were conceptually weak and highly suggestive in connection with keys and key-related goods so as to the difference in design portions was sufficient to avoid confusion. See In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 159 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Hartz Hotel Servs., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1150, 1154 (TTAB 2011).