(Podcast) The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The Briefing: Affiliate Marketing vs Retail Services - TTAB's Landmark Ruling
SCOTUS and federal court rulings on TTAB decisions on granting trademarks and trademark renewals; Netflix settling an anticipated defamation case with a disclaimer and donation
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business - How Foreign Companies Can Protect Their IP and Brand in the U.S.
(Podcast) The Briefing: It’s Not Yabba-Dabba-Delicious – TTAB Denies Color Mark for Post Fruity Pebbles!
The Briefing: It’s Not Yabba-Dabba-Delicious – TTAB Denies Color Mark for Post Fruity Pebbles!
8 Key Takeaways | The Presumption of Irreparable Harm After the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020
PODCAST: Paralegal Insights: A Collaborative Trademark Practice, Series 4
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - USPTO Suspends Applications Including Criticisms of Known Living Figures
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: USPTO Suspends Applications Including Criticisms of Known Living Figures
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog – No Beating Around the Bush: TTAB Upholds Anti-Pot Policy
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Supreme Court Takes Up Jack Daniel’s-Bad Spaniels Trademark Dispute
Season Three Trailer
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: NBA Star Luka Doncic Goes Hard in the Paint and Seeks to Cancel Mom’s Trademark (Part 1)
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - NBA Star Luka Doncic Goes Hard in the Paint and Seeks to Cancel Mom’s Trademark (Part 1)
JONES DAY TALKS®: Buckeyes Win: Ohio State Secures Trademark for “THE”
5 Key Takeaways | Combating Misrepresentations in Trademark Prosecution and Maintenance
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - THE Ohio State University Registers "The" as a Trademark
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: THE Ohio State University Registers "The" as a Trademark
Referred to as the “names clause”, the Lanham Act prohibits registration of a mark that consists of or comprises a name that identifies a particular living individual without written consent.1 This includes full names,...more
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Vidal v. Elster, a case that pitted trademark law against the First Amendment’s free speech protections. While the Court unanimously upheld the Patent and...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Vidal v. Ester, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) that the federal prohibition on registering trademarks that identify a living individual without their consent does not violate the First...more
The June 13, 2024, U.S. Supreme Court decision in Vidal v. Elster made waves in the trademark community. All of the Court’s decisions are significant, and this matter was of particular interest because the decision marked the...more
During the 2016 presidential debate, Senator Marco Rubio taunted Donald Trump for having “small hands.” Now, more than seven years later, progressive activist Steve Elster is continuing his fight to trademark the phrase...more
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to show interest in trademark issues with its recent grant of certiorari in another case pitting the Lanham Act against the First Amendment....more
The question of whether a would-be trademark, “TRUMP TOO SMALL,” warrants a First Amendment exception to the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering a living person’s name as a trademark without that person’s permission has...more
Thank you for reading the February 2023 issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to Market® newsletter. This month, we discuss Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act in relation to the Supreme Court's pending review of the TRUMP TOO SMALL...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
IN RE STEVE ELSTER - Before Dyk, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment by refusing to register the trademark TRUMP...more
On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Iancu v. Brunetti, struck down the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks. Justice Kagan wrote for the 6-3 majority, holding that the...more
In a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a 2017 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision holding the ban on registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks under the Lanham Act to be an...more
“FUCT.” You can pronounce it as four letters, one after the other. Or you can pronounce it like Justice Kagan as the “past participle form of a well-known word of profanity.” Either way, the word can be registered as a...more
Last week, on June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” bar to trademark registration constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and thus...more
In a decision that is likely to trigger a rush to register trademarks that may be seen as obscene, vulgar, or profane, the U.S. Supreme Court recently determined, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, that a...more
In permitting the registration of the “vulgar” term FUCT, the Supreme Court recently extended its 2016 ruling from Matal v. Tam, which allowed the registration of the trademark THE SLANTS for an Asian-American rock band...more
The road to permitting the registration of George Carlin's "seven dirty words" began in 2017, with the Supreme Court holding unconstitutional the Trademark Act's prohibition against registration of trademarks which are...more
In our prior blog entries... we followed the course of Matal v. Tam, the case involving the mark “THE SLANTS.” In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court held that the ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Court found that, as with the recently struck down ban on “disparaging” marks, the ban...more
The U.S. Supreme Court this week officially pulled the plug on the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the registration of trademarks that comprise “immoral” or “scandalous” matter on First Amendment grounds. The prohibition, found...more
Earlier this week the United States Supreme Court struck down a century-old provision in the Lanham Act that banned the registration of marks deemed “immoral” or “scandalous.” By a 6-3 vote, the Court found in Iancu v....more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, finding that the Lanham Act prohibition against registration of scandalous or immoral trademarks violates the First Amendment of the U.S....more
It’s old news by now, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that the immoral and scandalous trademark ban set forth in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it disfavors...more
On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Iancu v. Brunetti that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment....more
Following its decision on The Slants two years ago, the Supreme Court again lands on the side of free speech in Iancu v. Brunetti. Our Intellectual Property – Trademark & Copyright Group discusses the case of the FUCT...more