Registration of Trademarks and Service Marks in the USPTO: Why Do It? Ted Davis Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
|
|
- Diana Whitehead
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Trademarks and Service : Why Do It? Ted Davis Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
2 The s Two Registers They are: the Supplemental Register; and the Principal Register. 2
3 Does your company apply to register marks that it knows are ineligible (at least for the time being) for the Principal Register? Yes No 3
4 Advantages of Registration on the Supplemental Register They are: the right to use the symbol, which can: have at least some deterrent value; and assist in the development of secondary meaning; the availability of federal subject matter jurisdiction in actions to protect the mark; and the obligation of the to reject applications to register confusingly similar marks. 4
5 Does your company take into account the potential effect on future litigation costs when determining whether to pursue the registration of a mark? Yes No 5
6 They are: the registration s value as evidence of mark validity in litigation to protect the mark: Under Sections 7(b) and 33(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1057(b), 1115(a), a nonincontestable registration is prima facie evidence of the registered mark s validity; 6
7 A certificate of registration of a mark upon the principal register provided by this chapter shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the owner s ownership of the mark, and of the owner s exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate.... Section 7(b) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1057(b). 7
8 Any registration... on the principal register... shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the registrant s ownership of the mark, and of the registrant s exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the registration..., but shall not preclude another person from proving any legal or equitable defense or defect... which might have been asserted if such mark had not been registered. Section 33(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1115(a) (emphasis added). 8
9 A certificate of registration with the PTO is prima facie evidence that the mark is registered and valid (i.e., protectible), that the registrant owns the mark, and that the registrant has the exclusive right to use the mark in commerce.... As a result, when a plaintiff sues for infringement of its registered mark, the defendant bears the burden to rebut the presumption of [the] mark s protectibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Lane Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Lane Capital Mgmt., Inc., 192 F.3d 337, 345 (2d Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). 9
10 Circuits holding that a nonincontestable registration shifts the burden of proof on the issue of the registered mark s validity include: the First Circuit, see Colt Def., LLC v. Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., 486 F.3d 701, 706 (1st Cir. 2007); the Second Circuit, see Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc., 696 F.3d 206, 216 n.10 (2d Cir. 2012); the Sixth Circuit, see Leelanau Wine Cellars, Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc., 502 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2007); the Eighth Circuit, see WSM, Inc. v. Hilton, 724 F. 2d 1320, 1326 (8th Cir. 1984); the Ninth Circuit (usually), see Zobmondo Entm t, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108, (9th Cir. 2010);
11 Circuits holding that a nonincontestable registration shifts the burden of proof on the issue of the registered mark s validity include: the Tenth Circuit, see Creative Gifts, Inc. v. UFO, 235 F.3d 540 (10th Cir. 2000); the Eleventh Circuit (probably), see Welding Servs., Inc. v. Forman, 509 F.3d 1351, 1357 (11th Cir. 2007); the D.C. Circuit, see Aktieselskabet AF 21 November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2008); and the Federal Circuit, see Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
12 Plaintiff refers to its [nonincontestable] trademark registration. Defendant has, however, introduced enough evidence of the genericness of the [registered mark] to burst the presumption created by section [33(a)]. Thus plaintiff cannot rely on that presumption to defeat the motion for summary judgment. The presumption really serves only to shift the burden of production to the defendant. Liquid Controls Corp. v. Liquid Control Corp., 802 F.2d 934, 938 (7th Cir. 1986). 12
13 Circuits holding that a nonincontestable registration shifts the burden of production on the issue of the registered mark s validity include: the Fourth Circuit (at least recently), see OBX- Stock, Inc. v. Bicast, Inc., 558 F.3d 334, (4th Cir. 2009); the Fifth Circuit (at least recently), see Igloo Prods. Corp. v. Brantex, Inc., 202 F.3d 814, 819 (5th Cir. 2000); and the Seventh Circuit, see Custom Vehicles Inc. v. Forest River, Inc., 476 F.3d 481, (7th Cir. 2007). 13
14 They are: the registration s value as evidence of validity in litigation to protect the mark: under Sections 7(b) and 33(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1057(b), 1115(a), a nonincontestable registration is prima facie evidence of the registered mark s validity; under Section 33(b) of the Act, id. 1115(b), an incontestable registration is conclusive evidence of the registered mark s validity; 14
15 Has your company ever delayed bringing an enforcement action for registration-related reasons? Yes No 15
16 Two things happen at the fifth anniversary of a registration s issuance: the grounds on which the registration can be cancelled are automatically restricted to those set forth in Section 14 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1064; and the registrant may be able to file a declaration of incontestability under Section 15 of the Lanham Act, id
17 To the extent that the right to use the registered mark has become incontestable under section 1065 of this title, the registration shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the registrant s ownership of the mark, and of the registrant s exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce.... Such conclusive evidence of the right to use the registered mark shall be subject to proof of infringement..., and shall be subject to the... defenses or defects [in Section 33(b)(1)-(9)]. Section 33(b) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1115(b). 17
18 An incontestable registration is conclusive evidence of the validity of the registered mark To be sure, even an incontestible mark is subject to challenge as generic.... However, registered marks are endowed with a strong presumption of validity, and a defendant has the burden of showing genericness by a preponderance of the evidence. Gen. Conf. Corp. Of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill, 617 F.3d 402, 415 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting 15 U.S.C. 1115(b)). 18
19 The defendant in an action to protect a mark covered by an incontestable registration bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and testimony if it wants: to pursue the cancellation of the registration on a ground permitted by Section 14; or to avail itself of the defenses set forth in Section 33(b)(1)-(9). 19
20 If proven, some Section 33(b) defenses and Section 14 grounds for cancellation will invalidate the plaintiff s mark and registration and also are common-law defenses on the merits, including: that the registered mark has been abandoned (ground for cancellation, Section 33(b) defense, and defense on the merits); that the registered mark is generic (ground for cancellation and defense on the merits); and that the registered mark is functional (ground for cancellation, Section 33(b) defense, and defense on the merits). 20
21 If proven, some Section 33(b) defenses and Section 14 grounds for cancellation may not invalidate the plaintiff s mark and registration and also may not be defenses on the merits, including: that the registration or its incontestable status was procured fraudulently (ground for cancellation and Section 33(b) defense only); that the registrant has misrepresented the source of the goods and services covered by the registration (ground for cancellation and Section 33(b) defense only); that the challenged use is a fair descriptive one (Section 33(b) defense and defense on the merits only); 21
22 If proven, some Section 33(b) defenses and Section 14 grounds for cancellation may not invalidate the plaintiff s mark and registration and also may not be defenses on the merits, including: that the registered mark has been used to violate the antitrust laws of the United States (Section 33(b) defense only); that the defendant enjoys prior use of its mark in particular geographic areas (Section 33(b) defense and defense on the merits only); that equitable principles, including laches, estoppel, and acquiescence apply (Section 33(b) defense and defense on the merits only); and 22
23 If proven, some Section 33(b) defenses and Section 14 grounds for cancellation may not invalidate the plaintiff s mark and registration and also may not be defenses on the merits, including: that the registered mark is deceptive (ground for cancellation only). 23
24 They are: the registration s value as evidence of validity in litigation to protect the mark; nationwide constructive notice of the registrant s rights under Section 22 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1072; nationwide constructive priority from the filing date of the application that matured into the registration under Section 7(c), id. 1057(c); and additional causes of action and remedies. 24
25 The additional causes of action and remedies available to federal registrants include: the federal cause of action for counterfeiting and the availability of statutory damages under Sections 32 and 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1117(c); and 25
26 Does your company routinely record its federal registrations with the Customs Service? Yes No 26
27 The additional causes of action and remedies available to federal registrants include: the federal cause of action for counterfeiting and the availability of statutory damages under Sections 32 and 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1117(c); and the availability of import-exclusion provisions such as Section 42 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1124, and Section 526 of Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C
28 Thank You Ted Davis Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
B&B Hardware U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Much Ado About Nothing or A Reason For Discontent
B&B Hardware U.S. Supreme ourt Decision: Much Ado About Nothing or A eason For Discontent Stephen W. Feingold Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP SFeingold@kilpatricktownsend.com Establishing Liability:
More informationRecent Developments in U.S. Trademark Practice. Ted Davis Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
Ted Davis Kilpatrick Stockton LLP TDavis@KilpatrickStockton.com 1 Highlights of the Past Year the continued preoccupation of courts with the concept of use in commerce ; clarification of safe distance
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 informationRecent Developments in Trademark and Unfair Competition Law May 8, 2008 IP Innovations Teleconference
May 8, 2008 IP Innovations Teleconference Ted Davis Kilpatrick Stockton LLP TDavis@KilpatrickStockton.com 1 Highlights of the Past Year the continued preoccupation of courts with the concept of use in
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 informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1186 VENTURE TAPE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. MCGILLS GLASS WAREHOUSE; DON GALLAGHER, Defendants, Appellants. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
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 informationUnited States District Court Central District of California Western Division
0 0 United States District Court Central District of California Western Division LECHARLES BENTLEY, et al., v. Plaintiffs, NBC UNIVERSAL, LLC, et al., Defendants. CV -0 TJH (KSx) Order The Court has considered
More informationBASIC FACTS ABOUT REGISTERING A TRADEMARK
BASIC FACTS ABOUT REGISTERING A TRADEMARK What is a Trademark? A TRADEMARK is either a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes
More informationDetailed Table of Contents
Detailed Table of Contents Board of Editors... v v Foreword... vii vii Preface... ix ix Author Biographies... xi xi Summary Table of Contents... xix xix Chapter 1: PART I: INTRODUCTION The Origins of Trademark
More informationCase 3:08-cv VRW Document 11 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 9
Case :0-cv-0-VRW Document Filed 0//0 Page of BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP Alan R. Plutzik (State Bar No. ) Michael S. Strimling (State Bar No. ) Oak Grove Road, Suite 0 Walnut Creek, California
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc. v. Sportswear, Inc. Doc. 53 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN, INC.,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cancellation No. 19,683) BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE RESEARCH, INC.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1036 (Cancellation No. 19,683) BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE RESEARCH, INC., Appellant, AUTOMOBILE CLUB DE L'OUEST DE LA FRANCE, v. Appellee. Peter G.
More informationTrademark Act of 1946, as Amended
Trademark Act of 1946, as Amended PUBLIC LAW 79-489, CHAPTER 540, APPROVED JULY 5, 1946; 60 STAT. 427 The headings used for sections and subsections or paragraphs in the following reprint of the Act are
More informationOne Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States of America
S. 2968 One Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten An Act To
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 informationCase: , 06/15/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 42-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-55051, 06/15/2018, ID: 10910330, DktEntry: 42-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUN 15 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS HODGDON POWDER COMPANY, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) ) No. 06-2100-CM ) ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM
More informationBest Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct
PRESENTATION TITLE Best Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct David Hall, Counsel dhall@kilpatricktownsend.com Megan Chung, Senior Associate mchung@kilpatricktownsend.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 15-525-SLR/SRF ALCON LABORATORIES, INC. and ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., Defendants. MEMORANDUM
More informationAbolishing State Trademark Registrations
Louisiana State University Law Center LSU Law Digital Commons Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2011 Abolishing State Trademark Registrations Lee Ann Lockridge Louisiana State University Law Center,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Belstone Capital LLC v. Bellstone Partners, LLC et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 BELSTONE CAPITAL, LLC, v. Plaintiff, BELLSTONE PARTNERS, LLC; BELLSTONE
More information18 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter Article
18 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 297 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter 2010 Article ABOLISHING THE MISSING-CLAIM RULE FOR JUDICIAL CANCELLATIONS Ryan Vacca a1 Copyright (c) 2010 Intellectual Property
More informationTrademark Laws: New York
Martin Thomas Photography / Alamy Stock Photo Trademark Laws: New York The State Q&A guides on Practical Law provide common questions and answers on state-specific content for a variety of topics and practice
More informationCase 1:16-cv FAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:16-cv-20683-FAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION HERON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a
More informationDon t Forget That Inventorship Issues Can Be Determined in an Interference! Reyna), was a 35 USC 256 action to correct inventorship on two patents
Don t Forget That Inventorship Issues Can Be Determined in an Interference! By Charles L. Gholz 1 Hor v. Chu, F.3d, USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2012)(opinion by C.J. Prost, joined by C.J. Newman; concurring
More informationCase 8:14-cv VMC-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 146 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:14-cv-01617-VMC-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 146 SOBEK THERAPEUTICS, LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:14-cv-1617-T-33TBM
More informationThe Ongoing Dispute Over the REDSKINS Name
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
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 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 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 informationUNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK LAW Third Edition
UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK LAW Third Edition (2016 Pub.3162) UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK LAW Third Edition Mary LaFrance IGT Professor of Intellectual Property Law William S. Boyd School of Law University of
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 31 Filed: 03/09/18 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:165
Case: 1:17-cv-09154 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/09/18 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:165 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BILLY GOAT IP LLC, Plaintiff, Case
More informationCase 1:14-cv ML-LDA Document 26 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 285 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Case 1:14-cv-00182-ML-LDA Document 26 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 285 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND CLARK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 14-182-ML NAVIGATOR
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document
PlainSite Legal Document New York Southern District Court Case No. 1:12-cv-00201 The Velvet Underground v. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. Document 33 View Document View Docket A joint
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Avco Corporation v. Precision Airmotive LLC Doc. 60 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AVCO CORPORATION, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-1313 Plaintiff, : : (Judge Conner)
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/05/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/05/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/05/2014 12:37 PM INDEX NO. 156171/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/05/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationCase 1:13-cv CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2013 Page 1 of 17
Case 1:13-cv-20345-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2013 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationDIRECT PURCHASERS STANDING TO SUE FOR WALKER PROCESS FRAUD IN RE: DDAVP DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION
DIRECT PURCHASERS STANDING TO SUE FOR WALKER PROCESS FRAUD IN RE: DDAVP DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION Rick Duncan Denise Kettleberger Melina Williams Faegre & Benson, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Case 1:18-cv-01140-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA Muscle Flex, Inc., a California corporation Civil Action
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 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-100 and DOES 101-500, Defendants. Case No. 12-cv-00377 Honorable
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/25/ :15 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK EVA SCRIVO FIFTH AVENUE, INC., vs. Plaintiff, ANNIE RUSH and COSETTE FIFTH AVENUE, LLC, Defendants. Index No. 656723/2016 VERIFIED ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Montanez et al Doc. 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., CASE NO. :0-cv-0-AWI-SKO v. Plaintiff,
More informationOLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,
1 1 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, LOUIS V. SCHOOLER and FIRST FINANCIAL PLANNING CORPORATION, dba Western Financial Planning
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/21/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2016
INDEX NO. 521852/2016 FILED : KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11:22 AM SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS RAHIM ALI, Index No.: 521852/2016 Plaintiff, - against - GIBRAN KHAN, 1886 SCHENECTADY AVE.,
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 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
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1483 INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LTV STEEL COMPANY, Defendant, and USX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Jonathan S. Quinn, Sachnoff
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LOCHIRCO FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, INC., and THE HAPPY APPLE COMPANY,
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 0 0 ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LOCHIRCO FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, INC., and THE HAPPY APPLE COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs, TARUKINO
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3585 WMS GAMING INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, WPC GAMING PRODUCTIONS LTD. and PARTYGAMING PLC, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the
More informationCase 2:11-cv Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed // Page of H. STAN JOHNSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: BRIAN A. MORRIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: COHEN-JOHNSON, LLC Dean Martin Drive, Ste. G Las Vegas, NV (0-00 Attorneys for Plaintiff
More informationCase 3:08-cv BZ Document 10 Filed 06/20/2008 Page 1 of 19
Case :0-cv-0-BZ Document 0 Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 Timothy J. Walton (State Bar No. ) WALTON & ROESS LLP 0 South California Ave, Suite Palo Alto, CA 0 Phone (0) -00 Fax: (0) - Attorneys for Plaintiffs LIMO
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM. DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge
Case 2:11-cv-01565-DSF -VBK Document 19 Filed 03/03/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:690 Case No. CV 11-1565 DSF (VBKx) Date 3/3/11 Title Tacori Enterprises v. Scott Kay, Inc. Present: The Honorable DALE S. FISCHER,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ARMACELL LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13cv896 ) AEROFLEX USA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BEATY,
More informationFILED Feb 03, 2017 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
Case: 15-4230 Document: 30-2 Filed: 02/03/2017 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0091n.06 No. 15-4230 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Feb 03, 2017 DEBORAH
More informationCase 1:16-cv LGS Document 21 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:16-cv-00934-LGS Document 21 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Laspata DeCaro Studio Corporation, Case No: 1:16-cv-00934-LGS - against - Plaintiff,
More informationIntersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing
Intersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing May 28, 2014 R. David Donoghue Holland & Knight LLP 131 South Dearborn
More informationBRIEF OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
No. 16-548 In the Supreme Court of the United States BELMORA LLC & JAMIE BELCASTRO, v. Petitioners, BAYER CONSUMER CARE AG, BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, AND MICHELLE K. LEE, DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. PATENT & TRADEMARK
More informationU.S. TRADEMARK PRACTICE. FICPI 12 th Open Forum September 10, 2010 Munich, Germany Gary D. Krugman, Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, DC
U.S. TRADEMARK PRACTICE FICPI 12 th Open Forum September 10, 2010 Munich, Germany Gary D. Krugman, Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, DC I. Classification and Identification of Goods/Services In U.S. Trademark
More informationCase 3:16-cv DPJ-FKB Document 31 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 3:16-cv-00596-DPJ-FKB Document 31 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION ARCHIE & ANGELA HUDSON, on behalf of themselves and all
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RIDDELL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 16 C 4496 ) KRANOS CORPORATION d/b/a SCHUTT ) SPORTS, ) ) Defendant.
More information2012 Winston & Strawn LLP
2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., Defendant. CASE NO. -CV-1-H (BGS) ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART
More informationMarch 16, Mary Denison Commissioner for Trademarks U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA
March 16, 2017 Mary Denison Commissioner for Trademarks U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 Re: Request for Comments Concerning a Draft Examination Guide on Incapable
More informationAPPEALS OF CONFIRMATION ORDERS: IS THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE MOOTNESS MOOT?
APPEALS OF CONFIRMATION ORDERS: IS THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE MOOTNESS MOOT? PRESENTED TO THE BBA BY MARIA ELLENA CHAVEZ-RUARK AT SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP NOVEMBER 9, 2017 I. About the Doctrine A.
More informationLanham Act 45 [15 USC 11125] Abandonment of mark. A mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned" when either of the following occurs:
Unit 16: Loss of TM rights * CB 356-374, 377-383 Lanham Act 45 [15 USC 11125] Abandonment of mark. A mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned" when either of the following occurs: (1) When its use has been
More informationCase 4:17-cv PJH Document 61 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 33
Case :-cv-0-pjh Document Filed 0// Page of Brenda A. Prackup Law Office of Brenda A. Prackup 000 MacArthur Blvd. East Tower, th Floor Newport Beach, CA 0 Tel:.. Email: brenda@baplawoffice.com Attorney
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00-cjc-kes Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION 0 VIRTUALPOINT, INC., v. Plaintiff, POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
12-761 din THE Supreme Court of the United States POM WONDERFUL LLC, v. Petitioner, THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationUnited States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER. Plaintiffs Amax, Inc. ( Amax ) and Worktools, Inc.
United States District Court District of Massachusetts AMAX, INC. AND WORKTOOLS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. ACCO BRANDS CORP., Defendant. Civil Action No. 16-10695-NMG Gorton, J. MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiffs
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Express Welding, Incorporated v. Superior Trailers, LLC et al Doc. 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EXPRESS WELDING, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff,
More informationStill A Ball of Confusion: KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc.
Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2005 Still A Ball of Confusion: KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc. Nikki Pope Santa Clara
More informationCase 1:17-cv PBS Document 24 Filed 05/26/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:17-cv-10356-PBS Document 24 Filed 05/26/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JONATHAN MONSARRAT, v. Plaintiff, GOTPER6067-00001and DOES 1-5, dba ENCYCLOPEDIADRAMATICA.SE,
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case No Nutrivita Laboratories, Inc. v. VBS Distribution, Inc.
PlainSite Legal Document Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case No. 16-55329 Nutrivita Laboratories, Inc. v. VBS Distribution, Inc., et al Document 34 View Document View Docket A joint project of
More informationTrademark Law. Prof. Madison University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Trademark Law Prof. Madison University of Pittsburgh School of Law A growing glossary of trademark law terms and concepts: 1. The mark, as a general concept (vs. symbol, vs. brand) 2. The mark in a particular
More informationPTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences 2015 National CLE Conference Friday, January 9, 2015 Presented by Denise
More informationPARK 'N FLY, INC. v. DOLLAR PARK AND FLY, INC.
PARK 'N FLY, INC. v. DOLLAR PARK AND FLY, INC. 189 Syllabus PARK 'N FLY, INC. v. DOLLAR PARK AND FLY, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 83-1132. Argued October
More informationPOST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER
POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD (PTAB) COMPOSITION DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS APJ 2 PATENT
More informationOddball Defenses In Patent Cases
Oddball Defenses In Patent Cases December 8, 2016 Fabio Marino, McDermott Will & Emery LLP fmarino@mwe.com Karen Boyd, Turner Boyd LLP boyd@turnerboyd.com www.mwe.com Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf
More informationStill a Ball of Confusion: KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc.
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 7 4-1-2005 Still a Ball of Confusion: KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc. Nikki Pope Follow this and additional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-0-CBM-PLA Document Filed // Page of Page ID #: 0 HAAS AUTOMATION INC., V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFF, BRIAN DENNY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. No. 0-CV- CBM(PLA
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 informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 20 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:217
Case: 1:10-cv-08050 Document #: 20 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:217 FIRE 'EM UP, INC., v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
More informationSeptember 7, by David E. Rogers I. Introduction.
Trademark Rights Based on Common Law or Federal September 7, 2017 David E. Rogers I. Introduction. This article analyzes trademark [1] rights depending on: (1) whether a user [2] is relying on common-law
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Proceeding 91187103 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-1978-L v.
Expedite It AOG, LLC v. Clay Smith Engineering, Inc. Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION EXPEDITE IT AOG, LLC D/B/A SHIP IT AOG, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil
More informationTrademark Law. Prof. Madison University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Trademark Law Prof. Madison University of Pittsburgh School of Law A growing glossary of trademark law terms and concepts: 1. The mark, as a general concept (vs. symbol, vs. brand) 2. The mark in a particular
More informationCase 3:14-cv AA Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 1
Case 3:14-cv-00886-AA Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 1 Kevin M. Hayes, OSB #012801 Email: kevin.hayes@klarquist.com KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland,
More informationCase 2:09-cv NBF Document Filed 05/03/13 Page 1 of 15. EXHIBIT H Part 4
Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 874-19 Filed 05/03/13 Page 1 of 15 EXHIBIT H Part 4 Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 874-19 Filed 05/03/13 Page 2 of 15 Marvell Has Not Proven Economic Prejudice Marvell
More informationCase: , 02/19/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 54-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-57050, 02/19/2016, ID: 9870753, DktEntry: 54-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED FEB 19 2016 (1 of 9) MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1541, 04-1137, -1213 EVIDENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant- Appellant, and PEROXYDENT GROUP, v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Counterclaim
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/11/ :17 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/11/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x Index No.: 655023/2016 DAWN JONES, DDS and EXCLUSIVE DENTAL STUDIOS, PLLC. d/b/a
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION : : : : : : : : : :
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION WHEEL PROS, LLC, v. Plaintiff, WHEELS OUTLET, INC., ABDUL NAIM, AND DOES 1-25, Defendants. Case No. Electronically
More informationCase 5:14-cv FB Document 13 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Case :14-cv-0028-FB Document 13 Filed 0/21/14 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ALAMO BREWING CO., LLC, v. Plaintiff, OLD 300 BREWING, LLC dba TEXIAN
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1395 HEATHER A. DAVIS, v. BROUSE MCDOWELL, L.P.A. and DANIEL A. THOMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendants-Appellees. Steven D. Bell, Steven D.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO., LTD., a corporation of the Cayman Islands; WUXI SUNTECH POWER CO., LTD., a corporation of the People s Republic
More information