Addressing the subpoena power of district courts to compel evidence for use in US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a district court’s decision (albeit on...more
Addressing errors in the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s likelihood of confusion analysis in a cancellation action, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the Board erred by...more
Addressing the issue of analogous trademark use, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board designated precedential a September 6, 2022, decision in which the Board cancelled a registration for CAPTAIN CANNABIS based on the...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office Trademark Trial & Appeal Board found that a consumer did not have standing to oppose an application for registration because the consumer failed to establish a commercial interest and injury...more
Addressing a refusal to register for failure to function as a trademark, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) reversed, finding that the evidence of consumer perception of “100% THAT BITCH” did not demonstrate that the...more
The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) addressed, for the first time, whether the deletion of goods and services as a result of a post-registration audit during a cancellation proceeding triggers Trademark Rule 2.134 and...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) recently published its final rules implementing provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA). Most changes are effective as of December 18, 2021, but certain changes...more
12/2/2021
/ Corporate Counsel ,
Ex Parte ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Expungement ,
Final Rules ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO
Addressing for the first time whether the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. also applied to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the...more
9/16/2021
/ Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Corporate Counsel ,
False Association ,
Lanham Act ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Cancellation ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
Addressing the assessment and application of the DuPont likelihood of confusion factors, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding of no likelihood of confusion...more
Addressing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB’s) treatment of certain evidence in its likelihood of confusion analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the TTAB’s dismissal of...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision to cancel a registration after the TTAB refused to consider the registrant’s reply brief and the evidence included in...more
Addressing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) finding that EARNHARDT was not primarily merely a surname, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the TTAB to clarify its surname analysis....more
Addressing a dispute over ownership of a service mark between a departing member of a group and the remaining group members, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) explained that an applicant’s evidence of a family of marks can be used to help prove acquired distinctiveness for a new member of that family, but held that the applicant failed to...more