How to Register a Trademark: Understanding Trademark Classes

When registering a trademark, it is important to understand the different classes of goods and services that the trademark will apply to. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has designated 45 classes under the Nice International Classification of Goods and Services, with classes 1-34 for goods and classes 35-45 for services.

To ensure the success of a trademark application, it is essential to choose the appropriate class of goods or services that accurately represents the scope of the trademark. This means finding the right balance between a class that is too broad and one that is too narrow. It is also important to note that trademark protection only extends to the specific class of goods or services listed in the application.

The 45 trademark classes cover a wide range of goods and services. Class 1 includes chemicals used in industry, while class 2 includes paints and varnishes. Class 3 covers cleaning and cosmetic products, while class 4 covers industrial oils and fuels. Class 5 includes pharmaceutical and veterinary products, and class 6 includes common metals. Class 7 includes machines and machine tools, and class 8 includes hand tools and implements. Class 9 includes scientific, nautical, and photographic apparatus, while class 10 includes surgical and medical apparatus. Class 11 includes apparatus for heating and cooking, while class 12 covers vehicles. Class 13 includes firearms and explosives, and class 14 includes precious metals and stones. Class 15 includes musical instruments, while class 16 includes paper and printed materials. Class 17 includes rubber and plastic materials, and class 18 includes leather goods. Finally, class 19 includes building materials.

By understanding the different trademark classes and selecting the appropriate class for your goods or services, you can ensure a successful trademark application that provides the necessary legal protection for your intellectual property.

Comments

NEVER Read the Comments!

The Federal Court this week delivered their judgement on Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Service Seeking Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1040 going all out by handing out whopping fines, legal costs orders and ordering Service Seeking Pty Ltd to establish a, undoubtedly expensive, compliance system to be monitored by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). What did they do that was so bad? According to the Federal Court of Australia, they created a system in which businesses could write their own customer reviews. With a rating system less defined than what constitutes a 5-star rating in an Uber trip, businesses could write a review, assign a star rating and send it off to their customer for approval. If the customer didn’t respond or even open the email containing the review, then the review was automatically published online after a set period. By estimates of the Court, approximately 80% of the reviews published on the website for the period that this sch

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game With the recent announcement that EA will be venturing back into the world of college sports for one of their upcoming games. It is essential to look at the reasons for its (over a decade-long) hiatus from making college sports games. Several high-profile cases took down a very profitable area of sports gaming almost ten years ago, over a simple but crucial element to the games, the players. Privacy and personality laws in the United States is an emerging area of law founded on the basis that is based in tort law. It deals with the ideas that a person has rights: 1. To be left alone; 2. To not have public disclosure of private facts; 3. To not be depicted in a false light; and 4. To not have your name and likeness misappropriated. On these critical tenets, personality laws have become increasingly more prevalent as, due to advances in technologies, it is becoming easier for one's likeness to be copied and distributed. Th

You can take the bread company out of Hawaii, but you can't take Hawaii out of the bread company.

You can take the bread company out of Hawaii, but you can't take Hawaii out of the bread company. What do you do when your favourite company that makes your favourite type of bread makes it bread outside of your favourite state? You take them to court, or at least that is what one man has done. A man in New York has filed a class action against bread maker, King's Hawaiian over the sweet rolls alleging that the company misled him into believing that the rolls are actually made in Hawaii. Robert Galinsky is pursuing a class-action lawsuit against the company claiming unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. King's Hawaiian packaging Galinsky claims that Hawaiian Rolls by itself "does not denote a roll made in Hawaii any more than a 'Moon Pie' can claim to have been baked on the moon." But the company using the original location of its factory, 'Hilo, Hawaii' in its packaging is misleading to customers. If Galinsky can convince th

Legally Insightful

Search This Blog