Category Archives: TTAB

Subscribe to TTAB RSS Feed

Heinz Seeks “Smart” De Novo Review In Light Of B&B Hardware

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. v. Boulder Brands USA, IncContinue Reading

The House That Juice Built: TTAB Denies Registration To Parodies

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 as a defense in … Continue Reading

B&B Hardware: Sometimes, Not Always, Not Never

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 manufacture and sell metal … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Confirms That Advertising Your Services On A Website Is Not Use In Commerce

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 in prematurely applying for … Continue Reading

USPTO: Over Half of Applications/Declarations Studied Over-Claim Covered Goods/Services

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 the application and/or … Continue Reading

LexBlog