(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
In Vidal v. Elster, a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision, holding that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment or...more
In a landmark decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s provision that prohibits the registration of trademarks consisting of, or...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 Supreme Court granted certiorari and will review the Federal Circuit’s opinion that Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional as applied to a trademark for the term TRUMP TOO SMALL. The TRUMP TOO SMALL trademark...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
Revisiting jurisprudence touching on the Lanham Act and the First Amendment from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Matal v. Tam and Iancu v. Brunetti, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that applying Sec....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
PIANO FACTORY GROUP, INC. v. SCHIEDMAYER CELESTA GMBH - Before Prost, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The appointments of TTAB judges do not share the constitutional defect...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
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 Supreme Court unanimously held on June 24, 2019, that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering “immoral” trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) infringes upon the First Amendment because such a...more
On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision in Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act’s ban on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the...more
On June 24, 2019 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...more
U.S. trademark attorneys received a New Year’s surprise last month when the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Iancu v. Brunetti, the case that should determine the availability of federal trademark...more
Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2017 decision in Matal v. Tam (i.e., the Slants case) finding the proscription on the registration of disparaging trademarks under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act to be an...more
In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam struck down as unconstitutional a provision of section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which had permitted the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to refuse to register...more
On December 15, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down as unconstitutional the clause within 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) (“Section 2(a)”) banning registration of a trademark that “[c]onsists of or comprises...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Dyk, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The bar in § 2(a) of the Lanham Act against registering immoral or scandalous trademarks is an...more
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in In re Tam that a refusal to register disparaging trademarks is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech reported on June 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more
Simon Tam of the Asian rock band, The Slants, probably was not envisioning an 8-year-long legal battle when he chose the group’s name. Slant is known as a racial slur for Asians. Tam hoped to strip the term of its derogatory...more
In an 8–0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed an en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and found the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to be facially unconstitutional...more
On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that a portion of the first clause of the U.S. Trademark Law (the “Lanham Act”), which is commonly known as the disparagement clause, was facially unconstitutional under...more
Asian rock band The Slants is no longer "The Band Who Must Not Be Named," as they titled their most recent album. On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Matal v. Tam, striking a provision of the Lanham Act,...more
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the importance of broad free speech protection in striking down a statute that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to refuse registration of disparaging trademarks....more