Trademark Attorney Morris Turek

Morris E. Turek

(314) 749-4059

  Google Plus Facebook Twitter 
YouTube YouTube

Trademark Attorney Morris Turek Featured on KPLR-11 St. Louis!

St. Louis Trademark Attorney Morris Turek

Watch Morris' Interview on KPLR!

St. Louis Trademark Lawyer Morris Turek

Watch Morris on All About Business!

Listen to Morris on KTRS Radio St. Louis!

Detroit Tigers vs Build-A-Bear

On September 18, 2009, the Detroit Tigers baseball club filed an opposition against two trademark applications filed by the well-known Build-A-Bear company.  Build-A-Bear’s trademark applications are for:

  • BUILD-A-TIGER for “plush and stuffed toys and accessories therefor; clothing for stuffed and plush toys”  (Serial No. 77630189)
  • BUILD-A-TIGER for “retail store services and on-line retail store services featuring plush and stuffed toys and clothing and accessories for plush and stuffed toys.”  (Serial No. 77630179)

The Detroit Tigers’ challenge to these applications is based on its belief that BUILD-A-TIGER is likely to confuse consumers into believing that Build-A-Bear’s goods and services “have their origin with [the Detroit Tigers] and/or that such goods and services are approved, endorsed, or sponsored by [the Detroit Tigers] or associated in some way with [the Detroit Tigers].”

Certainly, the Detroit Tigers baseball club (like everyone else) is familiar with the types of products and services offered by the Build-A-Bear company.  For many years, Build-A-Bear has been using its various BUILD-A-BEAR trademarks in connection with a retail store and website that offers consumers the ability to create and customize their own stuffed bears.  Furthermore, Build-A-Bear owns multiple federal trademark registrations for marks that incorporate BUILD-A-BEAR (Registration Nos. 2633892, 2553748, and 3367891, among others).  Quick, someone notify the NFL Chicago Bears that Build-A-Bear is using the generic word “bear” to advertise and sell stuffed bears!

I’m sure that most people would agree that this opposition is nonsensical and frivolous.  Based upon Build-A-Bear’s previous use and registration of its BUILD-A-BEAR trademarks, as well as the recitation of products and services in its pending applications for BUILD-A-TIGER, it’s reasonable to assume that Build-A-Bear intends to use its BUILD-A-TIGER trademarks for essentially the same products and services as those offered under the BUILD-A-BEAR trademarks, except that consumers will be creating and customizing stuffed tigers rather than stuffed bears.  But, apparently, the Detroit Tigers believe that it has exclusive rights to the word “tiger” and can stop Build-A-Bear from using the term to indicate to consumers an essential characteristic of its products and services.  Maybe as part of a settlement agreement, Build-A-Bear can agree to change its trademark from “BUILD-A-TIGER” to “BUILD-A-LargeOrangeCatWithStripesAndSharpTeethThatEnjoysEatingRawFlesh.”  Pretty catchy, huh?  Kids would love that!

Perhaps if the Tigers would stop paying its attorneys hundreds of dollars per hour to pursue far-fetched claims of the type set forth in its opposition against Build-A-Bear’s trademarks applications for BUILD-A-TIGER, it could afford to reduce the cost of its tickets and merchandise and, even more importantly, field a decent team more than once every three decades.

Share This Page

4 Responses to Detroit Tigers vs Build-A-Bear

  1. Kevin says:

    The Detroit Tigers should consider pursuing action against the real life tigers of the Sunderban. How about Build-A-Bengal?

  2. Rachel says:

    Nice opening to the new blog.

  3. Jerry says:

    Now those same attorneys, representing the Texas Rangers baseball club, are threatening to oppose the registration of the mark “Ranger Burger” used by a restaurant located near Ft. Benning (Home of the Army Rangers). Amazing! Too bad they can’t be sanctioned for frivolous oppositions!

  4. Rex says:

    I’m curious – how do these things end up getting resolved? It seems so abusive for large organizations to file these sorts of trademark oppositions. How does the TTAB see these oppositions? What do the settlements look like? How can a small company successfully defend itself against these without killing itself in legal fees?

Leave a reply