Without knowing what was noticed that led to the conclusion that "someone had the trademark for the term 'legal advice,'" it's tough to answer definitively. In general, one can claim all sorts of things, including a trademark, but whether the claim would withstand challenge is a different matter. And, in general, common terms may not be a trademark.
I agree with the response above; we need more facts. If the "trademark" LEGAL ADVICE is for a TV series about lawyers giving bad advice, it's protectable. It would be generic for a law firm. Trademarks are relative to specific goods and services, so in this case, context is everything. I'm also curious if you're really talking about a trademark, aka a brand, but again, would need more context to know that.
It appears you are referring to either the following or a similar USPTO record
Word Mark LEGAL ADVICE
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Promoting the search for jobs in the mortgage industry for loan officers, through advertisements ...
Serial Number 77897682
Think of it this way. APPLE may be a generic term for the fruit, not for the computer. Similarly,
LEGAL ADVICE is generic for the field of law, not for the field of mortgage job advertising.
If the use of the mark becomes distinctive in the minds of consumer, trademark registration is available. I would need to know more about the specific application to give a more specific answer.
Feel free to contact me directly if you would like to discuss in more detail.
Best,
Ryan Finsrud Howell, MBA, JD
RUBICON Law
I took a look at the USPTO and the trademarks you are talking about. The reason they were able to get a trademark on "legal advice" is because they aren't giving legal advice at all. They only have protection over "legal advice" in the brokerage, mortgage and refinancing industry, particularly job placement for brokers, branded swag for mortgage companies, etc. If they were lawyers or had a business where they were giving legal advice then they would not be able to get any protection.
Hi,
The reason the TM was registered is exactly as some others here noted. It is NOT descriptive regards to the goods and/or services it describes. That said, I disagree that the mark should have been granted on the grounds that it is utterly "misdescriptive" and therefore misleading.
Marks like this are very fishy in my opinion and you have to wonder why someone would want a mark that makes no sense for what it supposedly describes.
All the best,
Frank
www.LanternLegal.com
The series of marks seems to be related to a particular company's marks relating to the mortgage industry. As others have stated, if a law firm were trying to get the mark, it would be much harder. It is a strange mark for them to own and makes me wonder about the impact of this mark as advertising. All advertising must meet the FTC standards of being non-deceptive. We'd have to know more about what they are doing with this series of trademarks to evaluate further.
Someone can get a trademark for a generic term if it does not describe the products or services of the trademark owner. If someone provides legal advice and is seeking to register a mark "legal advice", the person will likely not be successful. On the other hand, if the person sells widgets that have nothing to do with legal matters, the person will have a much better chance of successfully obtaining a registration.
Michael
www.shimokaji.com