The Ongoing Dispute Over the REDSKINS Name
|
|
- Darcy Potter
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Ongoing Dispute Over the REDSKINS Name Roberta L. Horton and Michael E. Kientzle July 2015 A federal district court ruling issued Wednesday, July 8, ordered cancellation of the REDSKINS federal trademark registrations on the basis that they may disparage Native Americans. This signals the latest in an ongoing battle over the team s name. In a 70-page opinion, Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted cross motions filed by Amanda Blackhorse and four other Native Americans (Blackhorse Defendants) against Plaintiff Pro-Football, Inc. (Pro-Football), the entity that does business as the Washington Redskins, at the same time denying Pro-Football s cross motions. Although it has already attracted significant attention, this decision will have a limited impact, because it does not affect the team s right to use the REDSKINS mark. The ruling only affects the team s ability to enhance those rights through the benefits afforded by federal registration with the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). These benefits include, among other things, constructive notice of the registrant s ownership of the mark and prima facie evidence of the mark s validity and the registrant s ownership of the mark. The Court s decision upheld the ruling by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTABor Board) that ordered cancellation of the registrations for the REDSKINS marks. In ordering their cancellation, the TTAB found that the REDSKINS marks may disparage Native Americans within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act (Act), the federal law governing trademarks. 1 Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), prohibits registration of any matter which may disparage persons or bring them into contempt, or disrepute. Following the June 2014 Board decision, Plaintiff Pro-Football then brought the latest suit in Virginia district court, challenging the constitutionality of Section 2(a) of the Act, and contesting the TTAB s cancellation order. 2 1 Blackhorse et al. v. Pro-Football, Inc., Cancellation No , 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1080, 2014 WL (June 18, 2014). This was the second time the TTAB decided to cancel the REDSKINS marks; the Board s earlier decision was reversed by the US District Court for the District of Columbia in Pro Football Inc. v. Harjo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003). 2 Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse et al., Case No. 1:14-cv GBL-IDD (July 8, 2015). 1
2 The First Amendment Issue Plaintiff Pro-Football first argued that Section 2(a) restricts protected speech. The Court dismissed this argument, finding that Section 2(a) did not implicate the First Amendment. Judge Lee relied on appellate decisions holding that the PTO s refusal to register a trademark did not impinge on any First Amendment rights because the trademark owner could still use its trademark. As the Court stated: Regardless of this Court s ruling, PFI [Pro-Football] can still use the Redskins Marks in commerce. 3 Moreover, the Court observed, the federal trademark registration program is government speech, exempt from First Amendment scrutiny. In so holding, Judge Lee relied in part on the test announced by the US Supreme Court this spring in Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct (2015) to hold that the PTO s decision to register a mark is government speech, not commercial speech, as Pro Football had argued. 4 Because the federal trademark program constitutes government speech, the Court explained, the government is permitted to determine the contents and limits of the program without running afoul of the First Amendment. 5 The Due Process Claims The Court held that Section 2(a) of the Act, as applied to the REDSKINS marks, was not void for vagueness, contrary to Pro-Football s argument. The Court found sufficient the PTO s guidelines as to which matters may disparage pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Action, citing, among other things, the instructions the PTO issues for its Examiners who consider PTO applications in the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure. Indeed, the Court observed, Pro-Football should have been on notice that redskins was considered offensive by the PTO: The Office had refused to register this term on several separate occasions. As a corollary, Pro-Football claimed that the TTAB cancellation order amounted to a violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause because it deprived Pro-Football of its property without due process. The 3 Id. at Blackhorse at Id. at 26 (citing Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)). 2
3 Court similarly denied Pro-Football s motion, finding that a federal trademark registration is not property for purposes of the Fifth Amendment analysis. The Disparagement Claim Pro-Football asserted that the record did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a substantial composite (in the Court s words) of Native Americans believed that the REDSKINS marks were disparaging at the time the marks were registered. Judge Lee disagreed. Judge Lee made clear that a substantial composite does not require a majority. The Court cited dictionary evidence, literary, scholarly, and media evidence, and statements of Native Americans, showing that the REDSKINS marks consisted of matter that may disparage a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time when the marks were registered, i.e., between 1967 and In finding that the mark may disparage, the Court emphasized that no intent to disparage was necessary. The Court also noted, in passing, that Pro-Football s own linguistic expert had stated that redskins might be offensive. Among other things, Judge Lee also cited a March 1972 meeting between a delegation of Native American leaders and then- President of Pro-Football, Edward Bennett Williams, in which the Native American leaders demanded that the team change its name. The Court also looked to declarations submitted in the litigation by prominent Native Americans. An Ironic Twist? The Blackhorse Defendants latest victory may have a negative effect. If this decision stands, and the REDSKINS registrations are cancelled, this could open the doors for third parties to adopt the Redskins name and confusingly similar monikers for use on goods presently marketed and sold only by the team or under its authorization. It would certainly be ironic if the result of the decision were that additional parties adopted the REDSKINS mark. It seems clear, however -- or at least the team would forcefully argue, based on its longstanding use -- that for as long as it continues to use the mark (which will almost certainly be for as long as these proceedings continue), it would have strong common law rights in the mark. Indeed, the courts are unlikely to have any difficulty in finding willful infringement, even absent federal registrations for the REDSKINS marks. Other possible implications, however, include a decreased ability to obtain injunctive relief. In many if not most jurisdictions, courts explicitly balance the public interest in advance of issuing a preliminary injunction. As a practical matter, Pro-Football may encounter an additional set of issues to deal with following this ruling, if an individual judge lacked sympathy for its position. Where Do We Go From Here? 3
4 The dispute over the REDSKINS marks is likely to continue. An appeal by Pro-Football is expected. Indeed, the day following the decision, REDSKINS team President Bruce Allen was quoted in The Washington Post as saying We look forward to winning at the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He stated [w]e are convinced that we will win on appeal as the facts and the law are on the side of our franchise that has prominently used the name Washington Redskins for more than 80 years. 6 The REDSKINS dispute is not the only case of its kind. A similar issue is currently pending before the Federal Circuit in a case captioned In re Tam, No (Fed. Cir.). Rather than a trademark cancellation proceeding, however, In re Tam arises from an Examining Attorney s decision to deny registration of the mark THE SLANTS on the basis that it disparages Asian Americans. The applicant challenged the denial on First Amendment grounds -- among others -- but the TTAB and the Federal Circuit affirmed the Examining Attorney s decision. 7 On April 27, however, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided sua sponte to re-hear the issue en banc, and later scheduled oral argument for October 2 of this year. Like Blackhorse, In re Tam has generated considerable interest from both trademark owners and civil liberties groups, many of which, including Pro-Football, have filed amicus briefs. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed in this advisory, please contact your Arnold & Porter attorney or any of the following attorneys: Roberta L. Horton Roberta.Horton@aporter.com Michael E. Kientzle Michael.Kientzle@aporter.com 2015 Arnold & Porter LLP. This Advisory is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to 6 Ian Shapira, Federal judge cancels Redskins trademarks, The Washington Post, B1, B2 (July 8, 2015). 7 In re Tam, App. No (Fed. Cir. April 20, 2015). 4
5 determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation. 5
registrations of six of PFI's trademarks on the grounds that they consisted of matter that "may
Case 1:14-cv-01043-GBL-IDD Document 161 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 70 PageID# 6097 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1311 In the Supreme Court of the United States PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., PETITIONER v. AMANDA BLACKHORSE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationThis matter is before the Court on Defendants Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs-
Case 1:14-cv-01043-GBL-IDD Document 40 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID# 343 PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
More informationWAKE FOREST JOURNAL OF BUSINESS
WAKE FOREST JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW VOLUME 17 FALL 2016 NUMBER 1 NOTE: PRO-FOOTBALL, INC. V. BLACKHORSE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: DOES CLASSIFYING TRADEMARKS AS GOVERNMENT SPEECH
More informationTel: (202)
Case: 15-1109 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 01/21/2016 Daniel E. O Toole Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439 By CM/ECF U.S. Department
More informationWilliam B. Ritchie v. Orenthal James Simpson 170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 10 Issue 1 Fall 1999: Symposium - Theft of Art During World War II: Its Legal and Ethical Consequences Article 10 William B. Ritchie
More informationCase 1:14-cv GBL-IDD Document 18 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 76
Case 1:14-cv-01043-GBL-IDD Document 18 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 76 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationPRO FOOTBALL, INC., Appellee v. Suzan S. HARJO, et al., Appellants. 565 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
PRO FOOTBALL, INC., Appellee v. Suzan S. HARJO, et al., Appellants. 565 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2009) Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, HENDERSON and TATEL, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit
More informationCase 1:14-cv GBL-IDD Document 19 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 81
Case 1:14-cv-01043-GBL-IDD Document 19 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 81 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Plaintiff,
More information30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1828, 1994 WL (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd.) Page 1. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.
30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1828, 1994 WL 262249 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd.) Page 1 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1828, 1994 WL 262249 (Trademark Tr. & App. Bd.) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)
More informationSupreme Court and Appellate Alert
Supreme Court and Appellate Alert July 6, 2016 Supreme Court 2015 Term in Review: Indian Law Cases Overview In an unusually active term for Indian law issues, the Supreme Court heard three major cases
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1311 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., v. Petitioner, AMANDA BLACKHORSE; MARCUS BRIGGS-CLOUD; PHILLIP GOVER; JILLIAN PAPPAN; COURTNEY TSOTIGH, Respondents, UNITED STATES
More informationIn The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit
Appeal: 15-1874 Doc: 47 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 33 NO. In The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit v. FOR THE ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT Counsel for Appeal:
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 09-326 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SUZAN S. HARJO, et al., Petitioners, v. PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK GOOGLE INC. V. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. 2007 WL 1159950 (N.D. Cal. April 17, 2007) BOSTON DUCK TOURS, LP V. SUPER DUCK TOURS, LLC 527 F.Supp.2d 205 (D.
More informationTrademark and Unfair Competition Law Cases and Materials, Sixth Edition
Trademark and Unfair Competition Law Cases and Materials, Sixth Edition 2017 Letter Update Jane C. Ginsburg Jessica Litman Mary Kevlin Copyright 2016 Carolina Academic Press, LLC All Rights Reserved Carolina
More informationThe Redskins' Trademark Controversy and the Evidentiary Problems Associated with Proving Disparagement Under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act
Seton Hall University erepository @ Seton Hall Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 2015 The Redskins' Trademark Controversy and the Evidentiary Problems Associated with Proving Disparagement
More informationunassigned Aycock Engineering, Inc. v. Airflite, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2009)
Use in commerce modalities Use in commerce as jurisdictional requirement Larry Harmon Pictures Corp. v. Williams Restaurant Corp., 929 F.2d 662 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 823 (1991) (finding
More informationTed Davis Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Recent Developments in Trademark and False Advertising Ted Davis Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP TDavis@KTS.com Recent Highlights They include: the Supreme Court s sudden interest in the Lanham Act;
More information2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Slip Copy Page 1 Motions, Pleadings and Filings Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, District of Columbia. PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Suzan Shown HARJO,
More informationSUPREME COURT DECISION IN B&B HARDWARE V. HARGIS INDUSTRIES: Potential Impact on Trademark Prosecution and Enforcement Strategies for Trademark Owners
SUPREME COURT DECISION IN B&B HARDWARE V. HARGIS INDUSTRIES: Potential Impact on Trademark Prosecution and Enforcement Strategies for Trademark Owners By Michelle Gallagher, Of Counsel, Wilson Elser In
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1
Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice Federal Circuit Rule 1 (a) Reference to District and Trial Courts and Agencies.
More informationTrademark Law Developments Mark S. Graham, Esq. The Graham Law Firm, PLLC Knoxville, TN
Trademark Law Developments 2017-2018 Mark S. Graham, Esq. The Graham Law Firm, PLLC Knoxville, TN mgraham@graham-iplaw.com 865-633-0331 1 TRADEMARK LAW DEVELOPMENTS 2017-18 Presentation Text A. First Amendment
More informationNO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM UNITED STATES, Petitioner, KOURTNEY LUHV, Respondent.
114 NO. 15-1007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 2015 UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. KOURTNEY LUHV, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Proceeding 92046185 Party Correspondence Address Submission Filer's Name Filer's e-mail Signature Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number:
More informationIntellectual Property Law Institute 2016
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1288 Intellectual Property Law Institute 2016 Co-Chairs David Bender Robert P. Taylor To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at (800) 321-0093.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (September 30, 2003) TABLE OF CONTENTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 99-1385 (CKK) SUZAN SHOWN HARJO, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (September 30, 2003)
More informationCase 1:13-cv GBL-IDD Document 50 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 637 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Case 1:13-cv-00917-GBL-IDD Document 50 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 637 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1944 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, v.
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Appeal: 15-1874 Doc: 38 Filed: 11/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 37 No. 15-1874 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMANDA BLACKHORSE, MARCUS BRIGGS-CLOUD,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit STEPHEN F. EVANS, ROOF N BOX, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, DBA GAF-ELK CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
More informationThis Opinion is not a Precedent of the TTAB
Case: 16-2306 Document: 1-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/07/2016 (6 of 24) Mailed: May 17, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Modern Woodmen of America Serial No.
More informationCase 1:14-cv GBL-IDD Document 56 Filed 02/23/15 Page 1 of 41 PageID# 566
Case 1:14-cv-01043-GBL-IDD Document 56 Filed 02/23/15 Page 1 of 41 PageID# 566 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 8, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationRegistration of Trademarks and Service Marks in the USPTO: Why Do It? Ted Davis Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Trademarks and Service : Why Do It? Ted Davis Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP The s Two Registers They are: the Supplemental Register; and the Principal Register. 2 Does your company apply to register
More informationUnited States District Court
Case :0-cv-00-RS Document 0 Filed 0//00 Page of **E-Filed** September, 00 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0 AUREFLAM CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PHO HOA PHAT I, INC., ET AL, Defendants. FOR THE NORTHERN
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY YEAR IN REVIEW
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY YEAR IN REVIEW Presented By: Magdalena Berger, Esq. - Moderator Robert L. Raskopf, Esq. Sapna Palla, Esq. Jane Chuang, Esq. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY YEAR IN REVIEW: TRADEMARK LAW Presented
More informationCommissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) IN RE CHAMBERS ET AL. REEXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS Control No. 90/001,773; 90/001,848; 90/001,858; 90/002,091 June 26, 1991 *1 Filed:
More informationDocket No IN THE. Supreme Court of the United States. October Term, United States, Petitioner, Kourtney Luhv, Respondent
Team # 117 Docket No. 15-1007 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 2015 United States, Petitioner, v. Kourtney Luhv, Respondent On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: SIMON SHIAO TAM, Appellant 2014-1203 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 85472044.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Case 1:14-cv-00299-UA-JEP Document 49 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ELLEN W. GERBER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 1:14CV299 ROY COOPER,
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2589 ADAMS HOUSING, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THE CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United
More informationEntertainment Law Issue. by DREW WILSON SLANTS RULE
2018 Entertainment Law Issue by DREW WILSON SLANTS RULE Now that the prohibition against the use of vulgar, scandalous, or immoral language in branding has been struck down, similarly prohibited language
More informationCase 1:14-cv GBL-IDD Document 128 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 26 PageID# 5556
Case 1:14-cv-01043-GBL-IDD Document 128 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 26 PageID# 5556 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 17, 2003 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 17, 2003 Session WILLIAM H. JOHNSON d/b/a SOUTHERN SECRETS BOOKSTORE, ET AL. v. CITY OF CLARKSVILLE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Team # 105 Case No. 15-1007 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States October Term 2015 UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. KOURTNEY LUHV, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:14-cv-02540-RGK-RZ Document 40 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:293 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 14-2540-RGK (RZx) Date August
More informationM E M O R A N D U M. Executive Summary
To: New Jersey Law Revision Commission From: Samuel M. Silver; John Cannel Re: Bail Jumping, Affirmative Defense and Appearance Date: February 11, 2019 M E M O R A N D U M Executive Summary A person set
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION. v. Case No. 4:17-cv ALM-KPJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ ZTE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendant. REPORT
More informationCase 3:17-cv BEN-JLB Document 89-1 Filed 04/01/19 PageID.8145 Page 1 of 10
Case :-cv-00-ben-jlb Document - Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 0 0 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California State Bar No. MARK R. BECKINGTON Supervising Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 00 ANTHONY
More informationWorld Trademark Review
Issue 34 December/January 2012 Also in this issue... Lessons from the BBC s approach to trademarks How to protect fictional brands in the real world What the Interflora decision will mean in practice Letters
More informationRecent Developments in Federal and State Arbitration Law
Recent Developments in Federal and State Arbitration Law by Shelly L. Ewald, Senior Partner Watt Tieder Newsletter, Winter 2005-2006 Despite the extensive history and widespread adoption of arbitration
More informationSupreme Court to Address Removal of State Parens Patriae Actions to Federal Courts Under CAFA
theantitrustsource w w w. a n t i t r u s t s o u r c e. c o m A u g u s t 2 0 1 3 1 Supreme Court to Address Removal of State Parens Patriae Actions to Federal Courts Under CAFA Blake L. Harrop S States
More informationCase 3:17-cv PRM Document 64 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION
Case 3:17-cv-00179-PRM Document 64 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. EP-17-CV-00179-PRM-LS
More informationMicrosoft Corp. v. i4i L.P. et al. U.S. Supreme Court (No )
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L.P. et al. U.S. Supreme Court (No. 10-290) What Will Be the Evidentiary Standard(s) for Proving Patent Invalidity in Future Court Cases? March 2011 COPYRIGHT 2011. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No
Case: 10-56971, 05/21/2015, ID: 9545868, DktEntry: 313-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 22) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No. 10-56971 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationPublic Interest over Private Prejudice? The Public Interest Exception to the Defense of Laches and the Fourth Circuit's Clean Slate
Brooklyn Law Review Volume 81 Issue 4 Article 13 2016 Public Interest over Private Prejudice? The Public Interest Exception to the Defense of Laches and the Fourth Circuit's Clean Slate Christopher A.
More informationSupreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases
Supreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases In Pair of Rulings, the Supreme Court Relaxes the Federal Circuit Standard for When District Courts May Award Fees in Patent Infringement
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1278 (Interference No. 104,818) IN RE JEFFREY M. SULLIVAN and DANIEL ANTHONY GATELY Edward S. Irons, of Washington, DC, for appellants. John M.
More informationReexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective
Reexamination Proceedings During A Lawsuit: The Alleged Infringer s Perspective AIPLA 2007 Spring Meeting June 22, 2007 Jeffrey M. Fisher, Esq. Farella Braun + Martel LLP jfisher@fbm.com 04401\1261788.1
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-35897, 09/27/2018, ID: 11027087, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 1 of 18 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE INITIATIVE; PAMELA GELLER; ROBERT SPENCER,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #12-5379 Document #1475666 Filed: 01/17/2014 Page 1 of 15 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 25, 2013 Decided January 17, 2014 No. 12-5379 ERIK
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit G. DAVID JANG, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Petitioners. 2014-134 On Petition
More informationTHE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW THE SLANTS DECISION UNDERSTATES THE VALUE OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION IN PROMOTING SPEECH - CORRECTLY DECIDED WITH A CONCLUSORY ANALYSIS DAVID C. BREZINA
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellant 2016-1173 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 07-56424 08/24/2009 Page: 1 of 6 DktEntry: 7038488 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW & THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW & THE INFORMATION SOCIETY Supplement for 3rd Edition, July 2017 (Other formats available at http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/openip) James Boyle William Neal Reynolds Professor of
More informationInfringement Assertions In The New World Order
Infringement Assertions In The New World Order IP Law360, October 17, 2007, Guest Column Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Michael J. Kasdan Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 The recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-51238 Document: 00513286141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals
More informationCase 2:11-cv SLB Document 96 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-02746-SLB Document 96 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 8 FILED 2011 Sep-30 PM 03:17 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationNo In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-1341 Document: 27 Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 1 APRIL DEBOER, et al., v. No. 14-1341 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Plaintiffs-Appellees, RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 05-940 MICHAEL R. ROE, VS. APPELLANT, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, SEX OFFENDERS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AND SEX OFFENDER SCREENING AND RISK ASSESSMENT, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS,
More informationPatent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and
Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and Techniques ALFRED R. FABRICANT 20 th Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Conference April 12, 2012 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP Leveling
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1357, -1376, 02-1221, -1256 KNORR-BREMSE SYSTEME FUER NUTZFAHRZEUGE GMBH, v. Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, DANA CORPORATION, and Defendant-Appellant,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION
Case 2:13-cv-00124 Document 60 Filed in TXSD on 06/11/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, VS. Plaintiff, CORDILLERA COMMUNICATIONS,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Document: 19315704 Case: 15-15234 Date Filed: 12/22/2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JAMEKA K. EVANS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-15234 GEORGIA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.
More informationThe Supreme Court Decision in Empagran
The Supreme Court Decision On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A, 2004 WL 1300131 (2004). This closely watched
More informationTrademark Update
Trademark Update - 2015 Orange County Bar Association Intellectual Property Committee May 14, 2015 Presented by: Kevin W. Wimberly, Beusse Wolter Sanks & Maire, P.A. kwimberly@iplawfl.com Outline Gerber
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:10-cv-01317-ARC Document 105 Filed 01/24/13 Page 1 of 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN THORPE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 3:10-cv-1317-ARC
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 11-16310 09/17/2012 ID: 8325958 DktEntry: 65-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 14-CV Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Counterclaim-Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 14-CV-1466 FIRST QUALITY BABY PRODUCTS LLC et al., Defendants. FIRST QUALITY BABY
More informationCase 1:18-cv WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/07/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:18-cv-02874-WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 11/07/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO David A. Kupernik Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 24K Real Estate
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O R D E R
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DATATREASURY CORP., Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & CO., et al. Defendants. O R D E R 2:06-CV-72-DF Before the Court
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-vap-jem Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JONATHAN BIRDT, v. Plaintiff, SAN BERNARDINO SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Case
More informationOil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office
Oil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office Supreme Court Holds that Challenges to Patent Validity Need Not Proceed Before an Article III Court and Sends More Claims Into Review,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V.,
Case: 16-1346 Document: 105 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2016-1346 REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V., Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly Register at www.acc.com/education/mym17 If you have any technical problems, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Recent Developments in Patent and Post-Grant
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION AMERICAN PULVERIZER CO., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 12-3459-CV-S-RED ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 2:08-cv LED-RSP Document 474 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 22100
Case 2:08-cv-00016-LED-RSP Document 474 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 22100 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before GORSUCH, SEYMOUR, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT November 25, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit , VARDON GOLF COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1557, -1651 VARDON GOLF COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KARSTEN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Defendant-Cross Appellant. Michael P. Mazza,
More informationThe Top Ten TTAB Decisions of by John L. Welch 1
The Top Ten TTAB Decisions of 2014 by John L. Welch 1 Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases and Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness appeals account for the vast majority of the TTAB s final decisions
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver
United States Supreme Court Considering A California Appellate Court Opinion Invalidating A Class Action Arbitration Waiver By: Roland C. Goss August 31, 2015 On October 6, 2015, the second day of this
More informationRecent Developments in Trademark and Unfair Competition Law. Ted Davis Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Trademark and Unfair Competition Law Ted Davis Kilpatrick Stockton LLP TDavis@KilpatrickStockton.com Recent Highlights the abrogation of Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx Inc. the continued judicial preoccupation
More informationTrademark Trial and Appeal Board, Meet the Constitution
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 27 Volume XXVII Number 3 Article 2 2016 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Meet the Constitution David S. Welkowitz Whittier Law
More information4 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 87. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADEMARK LAW
4 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 87 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, 1995 Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADEMARK LAW Rose A. Hagan a1 Copyright (c) 1995 by the State Bar of Texas, Intellectual
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, : Case No. 1:12-cv-552 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : : vs. : : TEAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
More informationRecent Limitations On Patent Term Adjustment For 'A' Delay
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Recent Limitations On Patent Term Adjustment
More informationMarch 11, Ray LaJeunesse, Vice President & Legal Director. , Vice President & Legal Director National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
Session Impact of Title Right-to-Work Laws March 11, 2013 Ray LaJeunesse, Vice President & Legal Director Presenter name & date, Vice President & Legal Director National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TOBI GELLMAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MAYER MICHAEL LEBOWITZ TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TELULAR CORPORATION,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Appellant, AMANDA BLACKHORSE, et al., Appellees.
Appeal: 15-1874 Doc: 35-1 Filed: 11/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 47 No. 15-1874 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Appellant, v. AMANDA BLACKHORSE, et al., Appellees.
More information