California Intellectual Property Blog

Background image

Tag: famous trademark

Woodstock Trademark Owners Target Festival Despite Name Change

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

The Woodstock trademark fight was over before it began — but it began anyway.

The 1969 Woodstock Festival was a turning point in counterculture history. While the event itself was aligned with anti-capitalist ideology, the organizers secured commercial rights over the Woodstock trademark in 1978. And while it’s been over a quarter-century since the last official festival, recent federal filings show the owners are still fighting to protect the brand.

On March 24, 2026, Woodstock IP, LLC filed a trademark opposition against another festival organizer. The target was Alexander Richard Klinge, a man who attempted to register the name “Wubstock” for an upcoming music festival held in Iowa. The interesting issue is that this battle seemed to be over even before Woodstock’s official owners filed the Opposition.

A Tight Grip on the Woodstock Trademark

The owners of the Woodstock brand filed their first trademark application in 1978. While many may have seen such commercialization as a betrayal of the original festival’s values, it ensured the men who organized the event maintained control of the trademark. This certainly allowed them to cash in on the follow-up festivals in 1994 and 1999.

However, the 1999 festival was – put simply – an absolute trainwreck. In fact, that’s the actual name of the Netflix documentary that focuses on the event. Due in part to bad publicity and monetary issues, there have been no other festivals since that year. However, this hasn’t prevented the owner from capitalizing on the name.

Enter Wubstock, a 2-day electronic music festival. While Wubstock organizers didn’t directly use the Woodstock trademark, the owners of the original brand felt the name was too similar. That’s why they took swift action when organizers of Wubstock sought registration in June 2025. While the new event’s organizer seemed to concede, the issue still ended up before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Woodstock vs. Wubstock

In its opposition, Woodstock IP, LLC claims that registration of Wubstock would confuse consumers. The complaint states that the festival name creates “a false sense of connection” with the actual Woodstock brand. In any other instance, it would be up to the Wubstock organizers to prove that registration would not create a likelihood of confusion with the Woodstock trademark.

However, it seems likely that there will be no attempt to do so. The owners of Woodstock sent a cease and desist letter to Alexander Klinge regarding the festival. In response, Klinge said he would end all use of the “Wubstock” name to avoid any perceived infringement of the Woodstock trademark. The festival name was abruptly changed to Sonic Roots.

However, it seems that Klinge did not act quickly enough for Woodstock. Less than two weeks after he promised to end any promotion under the Wubstock name, Woodstock IP, LLC filed its opposition. The brand noted that Klinge agreed to withdraw his application voluntarily, but that it had not been done in a “timely manner.” 

Is a Legal Fight Coming?

Now that a formal opposition has been filed, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is involved. On paper, the Wubstock applicant has until May 23, 2026, to file an answer with the TTAB. In many cases, we would have to wait and see what happens next. Filing an answer by the deadline would be necessary if the owner of the opposed application wanted to fight back.

However, this doesn’t seem to be the case with Wubstock. As promised in Klinge’s response to Woodstock IP, LLC, it seems that the Wubstock moniker has been scrubbed from existence. A rebranding process clearly occurred, but the owners of the Woodstock trademark still filed an opposition. If Klinge chooses not to respond, Wubstock will become an abandoned trademark.

The real question is whether the opposition was even necessary.

Did Woodstock IP, LLC Need to Go After Wubstock?

No statement of use was filed for Wubstock, which would show commercial use of the trademark. Without it, the USPTO will not grant registration. Additionally, withdrawing an application can take up to four weeks to process. Even without a formal withdrawal of the application, it was likely to die soon due to the lack of an answer.

Of course, the owners of the original brand recently sought permission to use the Woodstock trademark for a marijuana brand. For a company trying to capitalize on a festival with clear anti-capitalistic undertones – a festival that hasn’t had a follow-up in over 25 years – perhaps the Wubstock application didn’t need to die.  Perhaps it simply wasn’t dying soon enough.

 

As Physical Media Resurges, Blockbuster Fights to Protect Trademark

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

One brand's attempt to trade on nostalgia has led to a Blockbuster trademark fight.

The last time most people heard about Blockbuster was during the “meme stock” craze of 2021. While GameStop led the way, plenty of people made and lost money on the outdated video store stock. However, a new trademark opposition filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) shows that the Blockbuster trademark – and the brand itself – is far from dead.

While one franchised location of Blockbuster remains in Oregon, the company has essentially been defunct for a decade. This did not stop the brand – now operating as BB Liquidating, Inc. – from filing a trademark opposition notice on January 15, 2026. Their target? A farm supply company that apparently thought its deer food supplement could “Make it a Blockbuster Night.”

Blockbuster Trademark Opposition Filed

In July 2025, Southern Feed and Seed, LLC, submitted a trademark application for “Block Buster,” the name given to their deer feed supplement. Even though the video store rental company exists mainly in nostalgic memories, Blockbuster sought to prevent registration.

If Southern Feed and Seed merely named their supplement “Block Buster,” there would likely be no issue. After all, a primary purpose of trademark law is to prevent a likelihood of confusion. While the names “Blockbuster” and “Block Buster” certainly sound the same, it’s unlikely that any consumer would think a defunct video store released a deer feed supplement.

Unfortunately for Southern Feed and Seed, they may have taken it a step too far in an attempt to trade on Blockbuster’s nostalgic appeal.

Nostalgia: Bringing Back a Brand

Over the past few years, consumers have increasingly become disillusioned with streaming services. Oversaturation in the market and the realization that you don’t actually own digital purchases have not helped the industry. This change in circumstances has led to a huge resurgence in physical media ownership.

This, combined with today’s unparalleled popularity of nostalgia, has reminded people of what it was like to browse the aisles of their local Blockbuster store in the ’90s and early aughts. Perhaps this is why Southern Feed and Seed made the branding for their product look nearly identical to a longstanding Blockbuster trademark.

In the application, they included a trademark specimen showing their use of the term “Block Buster” in commerce. In the opposition filing, Blockbuster notes that the specimen uses the “famous torn ticket design mark, yellow and blue color scheme, and… similar font” made popular by the original Blockbuster Video logo.

This decision could derail the entire trademark application process.

What Happens Now?

In a situation where a seed and feed store simply sought to trademark “Block Buster,” it’s possible the application would have sailed through the process. Unfortunately, it appears the attempt to appeal to nostalgia may have violated several existing Blockbuster trademarks. As it turns out, it’s not just the remaining Blockbuster that could be affected.

Last year, the corporate brand garnered media attention when it began hosting pop-up events at fan conventions. Affectionately referred to as “The Blockbuster Experience,” fans can shop the aisles in a true-to-its-roots video store. Clearly, the company that quickly lost its footing when Netflix took over the world hasn’t quite given up yet.

For now, Southern Feed and Seed has until March 16, 2026, to file a response with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). If they fail to do so, their application will become abandoned. If they choose to fight back, they may have an uphill battle thanks to their seemingly clear imitation of the Blockbuster trademark.

In the end, the feed brand may need to “Be Kind, Rewind” their marketing strategy.

As Fans Demand John Wick 5, a Trademark Battle Is Brewing

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

As Fans Demand John Wick 5, a Trademark Battle Is Brewing

“John Wick” has almost become a household name in America. Keanu Reeves plays the titular character in the John Wick franchise, and after four successful films, one lesson we’ve learned is to never get on the hitman’s wrong side. Fans have recently been demanding John Wick 5, but they may first get to see a battle against “Jane Wick.”

In February 2024, Jane Wick LLC sought to secure a trademark for the term “Jane Wick.” In the filing, the company requested protection for the trademark in relation to ammunition bags and athletic apparel. Unfortunately for the aspiring brand, Summit Entertainment – the owners of the John Wick franchise – have decided that John has at least one more battle up his sleeve. 

John Wick vs Jane Wick

On February 19, 2025, Summit Entertainment filed to oppose the registration of “Jane Wick” in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In its filing, the company claims that registration of the trademark would likely “cause confusion, deception, or mistake as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Applicant with Summit [Entertainment].”

A likelihood of confusion exists when consumers might become confused about an item’s source. If consumers might believe that Jane Wick ammo bags are somehow related to John Wick or Summit Entertainment, then the USPTO must reject the application. The primary question now revolves around whether such confusion exists. 

While there’s no way to predict the result with certainty at this point, Jane Wick might have a difficult battle ahead. 

Would Consumers Confuse Jane Wick With John Wick?

In the filing, Summit Entertainment makes a compelling argument that approval of “Jane Wick” would infringe on their own trademark registration. They explain how closely the two names resemble each other – with only three letters differentiating them. However, the primary argument may relate directly to the product that Jane Wick LLC offers to the public.

Under trademark law, two brands can simultaneously own similar or even identical trademarks. For instance, “Delta” is the name of both an airline and a faucet company. This is permissable because consumers are unlikely to look at a Delta faucet and think, “Hey, my favorite airline company made my sink faucet.” 

While Jane Wick LLC only filed an intent to use trademark, meaning it’s yet to be used in commerce, it’s easy to see how consumers might connect an ammunition bag to a film character who fired over 1,000 rounds of ammunition in the franchise (so far). Also, John Wick “special ops” backpacks already exist.

What Happens Next?

While Jane Wick LLC has seemingly not sold any ammunition or gun range bags, its website did start accepting pre-orders on February 20 — just one day after Summit’s filing. However, the company may face issues when trying to achieve its stated goal of making women feel confident on their “journey to becoming a more skilled and empowered shooter.”

In order to sell its product without legal ramifications, the brand will need to show that its registration would not create a likelihood of confusion with the John Wick trademark. The ammo bag company has until March 31, 2025, to file an answer with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Failing to do so will result in losing the trademark. 

A quick look at the Facebook page of Jane Wick LLC shows the brand had 70 followers as of its pre-order launch date – compared to 2.7 million followers for John Wick. In the films, John has a way of succeeding against massive odds. However, the odds might just be on his side this time. And even if we never get a sequel/prequel, at least we can watch the John Wick trademark battle play out.

After ‘Bad Mormon’ Win, LDS Targets “Mormons for the Devils” Trademark

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

From Bad Mormon to Mormons for the Devils, the LDS takes IP rights seriously.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) is a well-known religion in America. What many people don’t know is that it’s also a corporation, and that corporation has a trademark registration for the word “Mormon.” The LDS has never been shy about asserting its rights, and now they’re doing so by going after the “Mormons for the Devils” trademark.

Filed by Destroyer Promotional Products, LLC, the Mormons for the Devils term seems to identify Mormon individuals who support Arizona State University in its football rivalry against Brigham Young University – a school operated by the LDS church. The ASU mascot is a devil. It’s common to see Mormons for the Devils t-shirts at ASU and BYU games.

A History of Protecting the Mormon Trademark

ABC News once asked, Is the Word ‘Mormon’ Really Trademarked? The answer is an unequivocal “yes.” The LDS owns the trademark for this religious descriptor, and they frequently fight back against the unlicensed use of the term. In fact, they recently went after Real Housewives star Heather Gay when she tried to trademark the title of her book, Bad Mormon.

While there hasn’t been much media coverage of this dispute since it initially started, a trademark search shows that the Bad Mormon application has been abandoned. No specific information was provided, but it appears as though the LDS Church and Gay reached an agreement outside of official proceedings. In this situation, it seems like the Bad Mormon trademark is not meant to be.

The same outcome potentially awaits Destroyer Promotional Products in its effort to trademark “Mormons for the Devils.” The Mormon church’s trademark opposition means that the promotional company — which appears to be based in Florida — will have to argue its case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

Can a Company Trademark Mormons for the Devils?

It’s easy to question why a company shouldn’t be able to trademark a term like “Mormons for the Devils.” After all, it’s merely a descriptor that applies to Mormon fans who support a football team outside of Brigham Young University. While it may fall under fair use rules, one could argue that the term is parody. In such a case, it may be allowed under trademark law.

However, it’s worth noting that this is the exact argument that Heather Gay used when trying to trademark her book title. The attempt does not appear to have worked. The LDS church currently claims that granting the Mormons for the Devils trademark would create a likelihood of confusion and trademark dilution by blurring.

The claim of confusion simply means that consumers might believe items coming from Destroyer Promotional Products are directly associated with the church. The LDS believes that such an outcome would negatively affect its corporation. Alternatively, claims of trademark dilution by blurring indicate that the famous Mormon trademark may be disassociated from the church in the minds of consumers.

What Happens Next?

Clearly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is serious about its intellectual property. They even created a document detailing when it’s appropriate for third parties to use their trademark. The document specifically says, “Requests to use Church trademarks in a primary branding capacity by outside individuals or organizations are rarely approved.”

However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that “Mormons for the Devils” will not be approved as a trademark. If Destroyer Promotional Products can overcome the opposition from the LDS church, they may be granted trademark rights. If history is any indicator, though, this may be a difficult effort. The Mormon Church has extensive resources at its disposal.

Destroyer Promotional Products has until February 22, 2025 to file an answer.  While some companies reach licensing agreements, it seems unlikely that the LDS would approve the use of their name alongside “devils.” If the Mormons for the Devils application isn’t abandoned, this could be an interesting case.

D&D Battles ‘Dungeons and Drag Queens’ Trademark

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

Dungeons and Dragons vs Dungeons and Drag Queens, a trademark battle

Very few games have entered the cultural zeitgeist in the way that ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ has over the decades. It’s likely what kicked off the entire roleplaying game industry and has spawned various films, books, video games, and so much more.

In what may be its biggest battle yet, the game’s publisher is opposing the ‘Dungeons and Drag Queens’ trademark application.

If you haven’t heard of this drag show, that may change in the coming months – and not just because ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ has set their sights on the live event. The drag show started on a small stage in 2021, but it has since become an international touring act. Still, this growing fame may not protect it from the “original gangster” of the fantasy role playing world.

Dungeons and Drag Queens Seeks Trademark Rights

On September 18, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) received an application from Paul Curry for the term ‘Dungeons and Drag Queens.’ Curry started a live show in 2021 that featured drag queens playing the game ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ on stage. Curry served as the “dungeon master” — meaning he narrated and controlled the fantasy journey in many ways.

Since that time, Curry and his show have begun touring internationally – even recently being scheduled for an appearance at the Las Vegas MagicCon convention. Perhaps it was this growing acclaim that made Curry want to seek trademark registration. Unfortunately, that may be precisely what derails his increasingly popular show — as the increased attention has not gone unnoticed.

Dungeons and Dragons Ready for a Battle

The publisher of ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ – Wizards of the Coast – submitted a trademark opposition to the USPTO on August 9, 2024. In the filing, the company claims that registration of ‘Dungeons and Drag Queens’ could create confusion among consumers along with diluting the connection of ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ to Wizards of the Coast in consumers’ minds.

The reason for the gaming company’s opposition is clear. The term ‘Dungeons and Drag Queens’ is nearly identical to ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ – differing by only a few letters at the end. This alone could make trademark registration challenging, but Curry also made things difficult for himself by specifically linking his show to the game in marketing materials.

If you look at the clothing merchandise released by Curry’s live show, they even use the trademarked ampersand (&) used by Wizards of the Coast. This symbol is stylized in the shape of a dragon, so it’s very noteworthy. It’s clear to see how the owners of the Dungeons and Dragons trademark might suspect that a likelihood of confusion would arise between the two brands.

Could the Dungeons and Drag Queens Trademark Persevere?

There are many nuances to trademark law. One of the most important is the clear delineation between brands and their services. ‘Dungeons and Drag Queens’ is certainly different than the role playing game. In the show, drag queens act out the fantasy story taking place in the game on stage. This is clearly a different service than what Wizards of the Coast provides.

However, it’s also clear that one might expect consumers to be confused. This means it’s contingent on Paul Curry to show that such confusion would not occur. It may be possible to do this by arguing that the drag performance is satire or parody, thus being protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Unfortunately, this might not be an easy task.

There’s no denying that ‘Dungeons and Drag Queens’ utilizes a similar trademark in its performance and marketing. To overcome claims of trademark infringement, Curry will need to showcase that consumers clearly recognize that his show is unrelated to the Wizards of the Coast game. He’ll also need to prove that it qualifies as parody or satire.

At this time, Curry has until September 18, 2024 to file an answer with the USPTO. Drag queens have overcome tough challenges over the years, but facing off against a creator of dragons might be a tall task.

Pretzel Day Ruined as Company Faces ‘Dunder Mifflin’ Trademark Lawsuit

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

Dunder Mifflin trademark lawsuit, bigger than Scranton

While Pretzel Day is officially recognized in April every year, a lawsuit filed July 1, 2022 could cause repercussions for many Pretzel Days to come. That’s because NBCUniversal (NBCU) — the owner of the hit show The Office — is facing off against a company that’s owned the trademark registration for “Dunder Mifflin” for about six years. David Wallace would be none too pleased about the situation.

NBCUniversal Files Lawsuit Over “Dunder Mifflin”

When the American version of The Office premiered back in 2005, few people understood the cultural significance it would eventually hold. Even 15 years later, it claimed the top spot as the most streamed show on Netflix with more than 57 billion hours viewed yearly. This significant feat was reported in 2020 — the same year NBCUniversal sought to register a trademark for the fictional company within the show, Dunder Mifflin.

In a move that likely surprised many, the company’s application was denied. Even though they listed a date of first use of 2005 in the application, the faux paper company had already been registered back in 2016 by Jay Kennette Media Group, LLC. The brand was granted a trademark by the USPTO to use for apparel marketing. NBCU is currently appealing the rejection of its trademark application and have also filed a lawsuit claiming trademark infringement.

Trademark Squatter or Rightful Owner?

The lawsuit filed by NBCUniversal claims that Jay Kennette Media Group registered “Dunder Mifflin” as a form of trademark squatting. They say the company actively registers intellectual property they have no rightful ownership over to either (A) sell the trademark for profit to the rightful owner or (B) profit by creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

When reviewing the trademarks owned by Jay Kennette Media Group, it seems as if NBCU has a strong point. The company has registered trademarks from a variety of fictional works it has no ownership over. These include Dragon Ball Z, Blade Runner, and many of the stories written by H.P. Lovecraft.

Does this mean these rights will hold up in court? Absolutely not. Now faced with trademark litigation, it’s possible that Jay Kennette Media Group’s trademark claims are in trouble.

What Happens Now?

Now that NBCUniversal has filed a lawsuit in federal court, Jay Kennette Media Group will have three weeks to respond following service of the complaint. They can file an answer, a motion to dismiss, or another type of response. They may also choose not to respond at all if they believe they might lose the case, and this will result in a default judgment for NBCU. The majority of trademark cases end in this manner.

If Jay Kennette Media Group fails to respond or loses its case, however, it could result in significant losses for the company. NBCUniversal has requested that any remaining merchandise branded with the Dunder Mifflin name be destroyed. They’re also seeking unspecified damages along with any profits Jay Kennette has earned from selling infringing branded merchandise featuring the fictional paper company’s name.

Fans of The Office may remember how short Dwight’s first run as manager was, but with nearly six years of using “Dunder Mifflin,” Jay Kennette Media Group’s use of the term is anything but short-lived. In fact, they were very close to being able to file to make their trademark incontestable.  There’s no guarantee how the courts will decide if this case does go to trial, but if NBCU is as successful as they hope, it might be over before Belsnickel visits.

Just Weeks Before Halloween, the Gremlins Are in Trademark Court

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

Gremlins trademark dispute with Tiny Gremlin LLC

When the film Gremlins came out in 1984, it introduced a generation to the novelty of comedy horror movies. Its popularity also spawned a sequel along with global earnings of over $200 million. Over 37 years later — and just weeks before Halloween — alleged misuse of the monster’s name has resulted in a trademark dispute before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

Owner of Gremlins Claims Trademark Infringement

While the word “gremlin” was in use long before the film franchise emerged, the Warner Bros. movie release made it a household name. The characters are highly recognizable, and even though it’s been nearly 40 years since the film’s debut, you can still find costumes of the characters in abundance on Halloween.

In addition to the fame Gremlins has garnered, Warner Bros. also has trademark protection over the term. The company cites this fame and its prior registration in a notice of opposition it recently filed against the “Tiny Gremlin” trademark application. This application was submitted by Tiny Gremlin LLC on November 17, 2020 to brand their online retail store.

In response to this filing, Warner Bros. filed a trademark opposition on October 7, 2021. In its opposition, Warner Bros. claims that a likelihood of confusion would occur if Tiny Gremlin LLC received a trademark registration for the term. The filing additionally states that dilution by blurring would likely occur if the USPTO grants rights to the applicant.

While some may view this as a cut-and-dry example of trademark infringement, the TTAB might not see it that way. After all, can someone claim exclusive trademark rights over a mythical creature that was around long before either party to the case used it in commerce?

Gremlins vs Tiny Gremlin: A Halloween Mystery

The opposition notice filed by Warner Bros. focuses largely on the potential for a likelihood of confusion. Their claim is that registration of the Tiny Gremlin mark would lead consumers to believe that there was some connection between the two companies. The opposition explains why this could prove costly to the movie production company:

“[Warner Bros.] has licensed the rights for various goods and services bearing the GREMLINS and GREMLINS 2: THE NEW BATCH marks… As a result of this use and promotion of Opposer’s Marks and the success of the Gremlins films, Opposer’s Marks have come to be recognized as identifying goods and services of Opposer exclusively…”

This is certainly a sound argument. If you ask most people what they think of when they hear the term “gremlin,” the film will likely be at the top of their mind. Their filing fails to mention, however, that the word was in use long before the film hit theaters. Of course, this doesn’t mean they can’t hold rights over the term if its use has become synonymous with their brand.

Even though the film Gremlins features characters very similar to the mythological figures, Warner Bros. has received trademark rights over the term. Additionally, it was just a few months ago when their opposition against another company’s use of the word was sustained. While there’s no way to know for sure what the TTAB will decide, Warner Bros. has found success in these cases in the past.

What Happens Now?

Now that Warner Bros. has filed their opposition, Tiny Gremlin has until November 16, 2021 to submit an answer. If they fail to do so, the TTAB will find in favor of the movie studio. If the company chooses to fight back against the opposition, the case could carry on into April 2023. This means we could see Gremlins in a trademark dispute for several Halloweens to come.

Even though Tiny Gremlins deals mostly in roleplaying dice, it’s hard to overlook the tremendous goodwill the Gremlins franchise has built over many decades. Of course, some may see this attempt as comparable to claiming rights over terms like “vampire” or “werewolf” — something that has actually occurred. If past decisions are any indication, though, Warner Bros. may have legitimate rights over the mythical creature.

We’ll have to sit back and watch as Gremlins battles it out with Tiny Gremlin in court. Is there any better way to start the Halloween 2021 season?

California Trademark Attorneys

We serve the following localities: Los Angeles County, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Glendale, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, North Hollywood, Pacific Palisades, Redondo Beach, Whittier, Orange County, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, San Diego County, Carlsbad, Encinitas, La Jolla, Oceanside, and San Diego.

San Diego Trademark Attorney

16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, California 92127

Phone: (858) 487-9300
Click to Contact us

Orange County Trademark Attorney

2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, California 92614

Phone: (949) 474-9330
Click to Contact us

Los Angeles Trademark Attorney

12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 810
Los Angeles, California 90025

Phone: (310) 656-3900
Click to Contact us

©2018 – Mandour & Associates, APC – All Rights Reserved
Aggressive Intellectual Property Litigators® – Trademark Attorneys – Patent Lawyers – Copyright Attorneys

Disclaimer: The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation.
This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.