(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
Does the Lanham Act’s restriction on registration of trademarks that include an individual’s name without the consent of such individual violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, even when the mark expresses...more
The intersection of free speech and private business branding is once again in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. On June 5th, the Supreme Court decided to hear Vidal v. Elster, Case 22-704, an appeal from the...more
USPTO Director Kathi Vidal recently petitioned the Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision in In re Elster. There, the Federal Circuit held the USPTO unconstitutionally applied Lanham Act Section 2(c) (15 U.S.C. §...more
At a Glance - Even though the Supreme Court has paved the way for brands to register trademarks that may be considered disparaging, immoral, or scandalous, brand owners are reversing themselves and voluntarily changing....more
In the past calendar year, we saw several significant decisions from the Supreme Court pertaining to trademarks. In Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294, the Supreme Court took another step in dismantling the prohibitions on...more
Kilpatrick Townsend partner Ted Davis recently presented his “Annual Review of Key Trademark & Unfair Competition Opinions” at the firm’s 2019 Advanced Trademark Law Seminar in San Francisco. Key takeaways from the...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
What constitutes a “scandalous” trademark? The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been grappling with this question since the enactment of the 1905 Trademark Act, later codified in the 1946 Lanham...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
We recently posted about the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 24th holding in Iancu v. Brunetti, which upheld a ruling that the Lanham Act’s bar on the registration of scandalous or immoral marks is unconstitutional because it...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
On June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court, in Iancu v. Brunetti, reviewing the trademark application for “FUCT”, held that the Lanham’s Act’s provision, prohibiting the registration of “immoral[] or scandalous”...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
On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Iancu v Brunetti that prohibiting federal registration of “immoral or scandalous” marks violates the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. ...more