The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) recently dismissed Luxco, Inc.’s (“Luxco”) opposition to registration of the mark TEQUILA (in standard character format) by an official Mexican regulator as a certification mark for “distilled spirits, namely, spirits distilled from the blue tequilana weber variety of agave plant.” Luxco, … Continue Reading
The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) modified its treatment of the “family of trademarks” doctrine in the recent case In re LC Trademarks, Inc., Serial No. 85890412 (December 29, 2016) [precedential]. All but breaking with its past decisions on the doctrine, the Board has now announced the … Continue Reading
The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) cancelled the registration for the mark PORTÓN last week, finding it to be confusingly similar to the senior mark PATRÓN. Patrón Spirits International AG v. Pisco Portón, LLC, Cancellation No. 92059527 (January 4, 2017) (non-precedential).… Continue Reading
The Supreme Court granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s petition for certiorari in In re Tam, 117 USPQ2d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2016), discussed here and here. In that case, the USPTO denied registration of an application to register the trademark THE SLANTS for a rock/dance on the grounds that it was offensive to … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit recently provided additional guidance concerning whether an applied-for mark is generic in In re Cordua Restaurants, Inc., (May 13, 2016). This case stemmed from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to register the trademark CHURRASCOS (Stylized) in connection with “bar and restaurant services; catering.” Applicant Cordua Restaurants, LP (“Cordua”) has … Continue Reading
We previously blogged ([here]) on Judge Proctor’s (ND Ala.) order directing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “Board”) to comply with the Court’s prior order, approving a settlement agreement between the University of Alabama and trademark applicant Mafia Enterprises LLC, which included vacating a prior Board decision that had been appealed to the District … Continue Reading
In response to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) petition for writ of certiorari in to the U.S. Supreme Court In re Tam (“THE SLANTS” case), the owners of the Washington Redskins filed their own petition for certiorari, asking the justices to hear their trademark case before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals … Continue Reading
On April 20, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Federal Circuit seeking Supreme Court review of that Court’s decision in In re Tam, 117 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016), holding the disparagement provision of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 USC … Continue Reading
In today’s increasingly global economy, trademark owners are more frequently butting up against the territorial limitations of trademark law. It has long been a matter of black letter law that trademark rights are territorial, subsisting only within the borders of the country where they are obtained. This general rule can present serious obstacles to foreign … Continue Reading
In a decision bound to impact trademark prosecution practice in the future, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) recently found that a consent agreement between a trademark applicant and the registrant of a similar prior-registered mark – that is, a coexistence agreement – was insufficient evidence that … Continue Reading
Recently, a District Court judge issued a scathing rebuke to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama et al. v. Houndstooth Mafia Enterprises LLC, (N.D. Alabama February 23, 2016). Judge Proctor’s memorandum opinion upbraided the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for ignoring his earlier-issued order … Continue Reading
In a landmark First Amendment decision relating to the Lanham (Trademark) Act, the Federal Circuit, en banc, struck down § 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), the statutory provision barring registration of “disparaging” marks. By a 9-3 vote, the Court held that § 2(a) violates a trademark applicant’s free speech rights. In … Continue Reading
In a ruling bound to please 15 year-old boys everywhere, the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) reversed the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the trademark NUT SACK DOUBLE BROWN ALE (in standard character format) for “beer” on the ground that it was immoral and scandalous under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act. In … Continue Reading
In The North Face Apparel Corp. v. Sanyang Industry Co., Ltd., Opp. No. 91187593 (September 18, 2015), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) handed The North Face Apparel Corp. (“The North Face”) significant victories its battle against Sanyang Industry Co. Ltd.’s (“Sangyang”) registration of its trademark. … Continue Reading
The number of successful oppositions against trademark applications based on a claim that the applicant had “no bona fide intent to use” has been increasing in recent years. On September 10, 2015, in Swiss Grill Ltd. v. Wolf Steel Ltd., the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) maintained this … Continue Reading
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently re-designated as precedential its May 12, 2015 decision that affirmed refusal to register a mark because the applicant’s specimens – showing the proposed mark in plural form, rather than in singular form – did not show the mark’s use in connection with any of the services specified in … Continue Reading
Recently, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “TTAB”) held that an unsuccessful opposer was precluded from later pursuing a cancellation against the same trademark owner, even though the opposer assumed a different corporate identity and the marks, goods and services at issue in the opposition proceeding were different from the marks, goods and services … Continue Reading
In a unanimous decision early this week, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of registration of the trademark for juice bars based on an opposer’s prior registered marks for PEACE & LOVE for restaurants. … Continue Reading
H.J. Heinz Co. (“Heinz”) filed a federal lawsuit recently against Boulder Brands USA (“Boulder”) seeking to vacate and reverse a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision finding that Boulder’s SMART BALANCE trademark is not likely to be confused with Heinz’s SMART ONES trademark, and that the SMART ONES trademark is not famous. H.J. Heinz Co. … Continue Reading
On May 8, 2015, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a resounding blow to trademark applicants who seek to register others’ trademarks as parodies. In New York Yankees Partnership v. IET Products and Services, Inc., Opposition No. 91189692 (May 8, 2015), the Board announced that “parody” or “fair use” can never function … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court issued its second trademark ruling of the term on Tuesday, ruling that federal court decisions on “likelihood of confusion” sometimes can be precluded by earlier rulings about trademark registrability issued from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB” or “the Board”). Petitioner B&B Hardware, Inc. (“B&B”) and respondent Hargis Industries, Inc. (“Hargis”) both … Continue Reading
In Couture v. Playdom, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the use of a mark on a website to offer services is not use in commerce sufficient to support an actual-use service mark application. As a result, the Court affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board’s (“TTAB”) cancellation of the mark. This highlights the risk … Continue Reading
It has long been the practice of certain brand owners to include more goods in a use-based trademark application or declaration than were actually being used. That was typically innocent. However, under Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) precedent such as Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1205, 1209 (T.T.A.B. 2003), over-claiming risked cancellation of … Continue Reading
