Michael Mangelson
Mike Mangelson is a seasoned business IP attorney with a focus on the dietary and nutritional supplement industry. Mike assists clients in protecting and enforcing their trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets, and in commercializing their IP through licensing and other IP transactions. He routinely counsels clients on issues relating to branding, product labeling, Internet and marketing law and long-term IP strategies that help them secure and protect market positioning and competitive advantages in the U.S. and abroad. Mike is listed in Best Lawyers in America (2007-present) and is recognized as one of Utah's top attorneys in Chambers USA: Guide to America's Leading Lawyers for Business (2007-present). Mike is the founding Organizer and Chair of the Nutritional Law Symposium (2005-present) and former Chair (1998-2008) of Stoel Rives’ Salt Lake City Technology & Intellectual Property group.
Energy Drinks and Nutrition Bars too Related to Avoid Consumer Confusion
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) recently issued a decision that highlights the importance of not assuming that goods that fall in different international trademark classes are unrelated in a likelihood of confusion analysis. In In re Spirits of the USA, LLC (not citable 4/21/10), the TTAB held held that energy drinks (class 32) and nutrition bars (classes 5 and 30) are too related to avoid a likelihood of consumer confusion when used in connection with the mark "Runner". The TTAB concluded that energy drinks and nutrition bars both provide energy and are commercially related products that are sold in the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers, so confusion is likely.
How can you know if the relationship between the products you plan to list in your trademark application and those in an existing third party registration are likely too close? Do what examining attorneys at the USPTO do: search for third party registrations that list both your products and the products listed in the registration in question. If a number of these third party registrations exist, the examining attorney is likely to cite them in a refusal claiming that this evidence suggests that the listed products are of a type which may emanate from a single source and therefore are likely to cause confusion in the marketplace. (See In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993)).
Fewer International Trademark Filings in 2009 Parallels Global Economic Downturn
Did you cut down on new branding projects last year to save money? If you did, you're not alone. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reported that international trademark filings last year decreased by 16 percent, and U.S. filings dropped more than 13 percent from 2008. In 2009, 35,195 international trademark applications flowed through WIPO's system, compared with 42,075 applications in 2008. USPTO trademark filings for 2009 dipped to 352,051 applications from 401,392 in 2008.
While most countries experienced fewer filings, filings in some countries increased. Filings from Japan rose a modest 3 percent, while filings in the South Korea increased by 33 percent and Singapore by 21 percent. WIPO Director General Francis Gurry noted that demand for intellectual property rights had reached unprecedented levels prior to the economic crisis and we have every reason to believe that international trademark activity will pick up as economic growth solidifies and broadens. Trademark filings are already up in 2010. Hopefully the economy will follow suit.
Understanding Front-of-Package Violations: Why Warning Letters Are Sent to Industry
Ever wonder if what you say on your label or packaging could draw the attention of the FDA? It's always helpful to be able to learn from examples of what's unacceptable before you release your product packaging.
The FDA has a helpful chart that summarizes FDA warning letters for nutrition claims on packaging that provides great examples of what to avoid.
So if, for example, your product is intended for children under 2 years of age, you may want to study the chart to understand why the FDA issued multiple warning letters to companies making nutrition claims for products intended for children under 2 years of age.
Good News on Senator McCain's S.3002, the Dietary Supplement Safety Act?
The dietary supplement industry received good news when Senator John McCain recently backed away from a bill that would have given the FDA greater authority to regulate the industry. Senator Orin Hatch, who had been critical of the bill, thanked Senator McCain for withdrawing the bill.
Here's a copy of Senator Hatch's letter to Senator McCain: 
Welcome to the Essential Nutrition Law Blog
Welcome to the first day of our blog devoted to nutrition law. Nutrition law is one of my passions partly because I appreciate the role that nutrition plays in improving health and life, which I seem to be more concerned about today than I was ten years ago. I was happy to see this optimism supported in a recent ScienceDaily article. The rules and regulations that govern how nutrition products are made, marketed and sold is also a passion and just as important to the individuals and companies involved in this business.
We’re not the first or only blog to address topics related to nutrition law. I like to read Joel Rothman’s Nutritional and Dietary Supplement Law Blog, and my colleague Ken Odza maintains an interesting blog on Food Liability Law. But I hope that our passion and experience in this field will produce valuable content that will have you coming back often.
