Citigroup Sues AT&T Over The Word 'Thanks'

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Citigroup has filed a lawsuit against AT&T for trademark infringement. What trademark has been infringed upon you might ask? The use of the word "thanks" seems to be the reason for the lawsuit between the telecom giants. How can that be? Well, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Citigroup a trademark for “thankyou” back in 2010, which is pretty ridiculous when you think about it. I would sarcastically say "thanks a lot USPTO" but I'm afraid of being sued. :D

Citigroup Inc (C.N) sued AT&T Inc (T.N) on Friday, saying the phone company's use of "thanks" and "AT&T thanks" in a new customer loyalty program infringed its trademark rights to the phrase "thankyou." The lawsuit may threaten the business relationship between two of the largest U.S. companies, which Citigroup said dates to at least 1998 when they launched the AT&T Universal Card.
 
This sounds just like Chikfila v. the 'Eat more kale' guy. The two services couldn't be any more different and yet here we are. Jesus....
 
thanks.thankyou. sue me.

I dislike both companies equally so no cares there. However, the entity who allowed this patent needs to be tarred and feathered and made to perform highway clean-up on the 6 o'clock news.

You cant copyright a greeting that is part of the social fabric. I don't own a gun, but I am starting to want one real bad.
 
Obama must have let out a pleasant sigh of relief.

Seriously, though, I can't believe that Citi would try this in court. They're obviously going to lose the clearly untrademarkable trademark, if this gets to trial. Especially since it was not even phrased the same way.
 
Surprised that that one went through. There is a reason it is called "Blu-ray," not "Blue-ray."
 
Trademark in question can be found on TESS.

Looks like they removed the space to try and make a non-generic protectable service mark for the CC industry. Which begs the question, how does "thanks" violate it.

Speaking of thanks, AT&T was granted "AT&T Thanks" as a trademark. Some card program was granted "Thank you".

If there's any intelligence left, this will be fast tracked to invalidation.
 
You should only be able to trademark words that you create.

Yep. Including different spellings of existing words and unique and original phrase.


I don't see why it needs to go much beyond that. Existing common words should not be protected in any way.
 
Couldn't have happened to two worse companies.

As much as I hate AT&T, I hope they win this, get a massive settlement from CitiBank, then get the trademark revoked.
 
Reason #2,154,854 that the USPTO needs a massive kick in the nads and a complete reboot of it needs to happen.

What they really need is a 10 to 100 times larger budget so they actually can afford to hire the people they need to do their job.

USPTO's biggest problem is that they have nowhere near the budget they need to keep enough staff to give every patent application the thorough review it deserves, and to retain people with enough expertise in the field to understand some of the more complex applications.

This one should never have gone through, but it might have been presented to an overworked, underpaid government worker on a Friday afternoon, and it got a brief 10 second review...
 
How long was xerox able to keep their patient name until it became so popular I think they lost it?
 
How long was xerox able to keep their patient name until it became so popular I think they lost it?

Bandaid, Kleenex, even "Coke" if you happen to live in the South. you name it. Victims of their own success, being so popular that their category of product become synonymous with their brand name.
 
This is what happens when you let members of your in house legal department,or members of your outside Law Firms get put on the board of a company they represent. They inject brilliant legal ideas into the business model. Also, as mentioned above, the term thanks is in such common use as to render the trademark invalid in a courtroom.
 
What they really need is a 10 to 100 times larger budget so they actually can afford to hire the people they need to do their job.

USPTO's biggest problem is that they have nowhere near the budget they need to keep enough staff to give every patent application the thorough review it deserves, and to retain people with enough expertise in the field to understand some of the more complex applications.

This one should never have gone through, but it might have been presented to an overworked, underpaid government worker on a Friday afternoon, and it got a brief 10 second review...


You have no idea how close to the actual amount of time spent reviewing the application you were. A friend who worked at the USPTO for a while said they have a hard quota to meet every day for number of applications processed. To meet those quotas requires spending an average of 15 SECONDS per application to keep up and the applications are intentionally written in obtuse legal language to make them impossible to effectively evaluate in that amount of time.
 
Glad to know my bank has their priorities straight. Reducing reward programs and instead suing other companies, exactly what I want.
 
I guess common sense isn't a requirement to work for the patent office.
 
This reminds me of the copyrights on the words "Candy" and "Scrolls" may as well copyright the whole dictionary and the whole world at that point.
 
Back
Top