Let me try my question about different kinds of word marks again by asking a couple of people who participated in the chat if they could elaborate. Martin Silva mentioned “mixed marks” in the civil law countries, “text marks that are represented in an specific figurative way (form+color) and are only protected in those designs.” Do you have any particular countries in mind? That sounds like an important concept for this discussion. John McElwaine said: “Many countries apparently require ‘a depiction’ of the mark with no distinction between text, stylization or included designs.” Do you have specific countries in mind? I think that could offer useful information to figure out what distinctions are or aren’t available. Sorry if I missed others, especially in the audio portion—the transcript isn’t up yet. Michael R Graham asked me in the chat: Please provide cases supporting "weaker" protection statement for stylized word registered marks. As I said on the call, there’s a distinction between protection and infringement. Koke infringes Coke for soft drinks, but Koke isn’t a “protected” mark of Coca-Cola’s. Unless the TMCH is supposed to expand coverage of marks beyond what’s registered or validated by a court, the fact that a stylized mark might (or might not) be infringed by a use that doesn’t have the same stylization isn’t relevant. I agree with Greg Shatan that “strength” of the mark isn’t relevant to what goes into the TMCH, but precisely because that’s true we should be particularly careful to ensure that marks that are only valid because of elements that can’t go into the TMCH—that is, stylization or design elements—can’t have their textual portions in the TMCH. For US jurisprudence on the limited scope of stylized marks v. standard character marks: Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 95 F.Supp.3d 350, (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (dealing with special form mark whose words were unprotectable absent stylization), aff’d, Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 659 Fed.Appx. 55 (2d. Cir. 2016); Time, Inc. v. Petersen Pub. Co., LLC, 173 F.3d 113, 118-19 (“[T]he law of trademark accords stronger protection to the stylized version of certain words used as trademarks than to those words themselves ….[T]rademark rights in the stylized appearance of a word are distinct from trademark rights in the word itself”) (2d Cir.1999); Gruner + Jahr USA Publ'g Div. of Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publ'g Co. v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072, 1077–78 (2d Cir. 1993) (observing, for purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis, that “the district court ... properly distinguished between the strength of the [composite] trademark PARENTS [consisting of those words rendered in a particular visual style] and the weak, descriptive nature of what it called the ‘mere word ‘parents,’ ' ”); King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084, 1090–91 (10th Cir.1999) (holding that two differently stylized marks using the same two words were not similar); Neopost Industrie B.V. v. PFE Intern., Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 669 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (registration of stylized mark didn’t extend protection to nonstylized uses); Federation Internationale De Football Ass'n v. Nike, Inc., 285 F.Supp.2d 64, 72-73 (D.D.C. 2003) (“[E]ven after a descriptive term has become distinct, its power to preclude other uses of closely related descriptive terms is diminished where the senior owner has used its mark only in a particular, stylized way. For even if that overall stylized mark is strong, the trademark value of the words themselves may be quite weak.”); see also In re K-T Zoe Furniture, Inc., 16 F.3d 390 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (stylized form was registrable, but words alone were descriptive and unregistrable); Igloo Products Corp. v. Brantex, Inc., 202 F.3d 814 (5th Cir. 2000) (registration of composite mark didn’t provide presumption of validity for words alone); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953 (TTAB 2006) (finding no likelihood of confusion between two stylized marks despite identical goods and overlap in words BOX and BOX SOLUTIONS). Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759