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
6/21/2024
/ Constitutional Challenges ,
Donald Trump ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Lanham Act ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Application ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
Vidal v Elster
In a precedential opinion, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) dismissed an opposition filed against an application for registration of a logo mark containing the word “SMOKES,” finding no likelihood of confusion with...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) denied registration of several US trademark applications for the mark FUCK, even though the applicant had overcome a prohibition on the registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks...more
The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) issued a precedential decision affirming the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Examining Attorney’s refusal to register two different logo marks filed by southern California’s...more
Ending a hard-fought three-year campaign to secure registration of a popular handbag, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial & Appeal Board designated as precedential its decision refusing registration of the...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
3/10/2022
/ Appeals ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Lanham Act ,
Matal v Tam ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks
For the second time, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examined the standard for demonstrating fraud in a party’s claim of a trademark’s acquired distinctiveness for purposes of registration under Section 2(f)...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment, finding that a trademark registrant had alleged infringement of its trademark without having engaged in bona fide use of the trademark in...more
Effective January 2, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is increasing and adding certain trademark and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) fees. The changes come after a nearly three-year fee...more
In upholding a grocery store chain’s standing to petition for cancellation of a US trademark registration, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB’s) express...more
Reviewing a decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the TTAB’s affirmation of an examining attorney’s refusal to register the 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
2/6/2018
/ Constitutional Challenges ,
Disparagement ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Lanham Act ,
Matal v Tam ,
SCOTUS ,
The Slants ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) delivered a primer on demonstrating the acquired distinctiveness of product packaging or trade dress, including color marks, in refusing registration of a trademark application for...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
7/11/2017
/ Constitutional Challenges ,
Disparagement ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Lanham Act ,
Matal v Tam ,
Music Industry ,
SCOTUS ,
The Slants ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO
A unanimous decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in Matal v. Tam affirmed an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit and found the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to be facially unconstitutional under the...more
6/22/2017
/ Constitutional Challenges ,
Disparagement ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Lanham Act ,
Matal v Tam ,
SCOTUS ,
The Slants ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO
Addressing whether the word “tequila” can be registered in the United States as a certification mark, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) answered in the affirmative, dismissing an opposition alleging that “tequila”...more
On appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the issue of trademark use in commerce and, more specifically, the extent to which certain services can be...more
The US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit clarified the proper discovery procedures for a Rule 45 subpoena to compel a nonparty to produce documents in a trademark dispute before the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)...more
On appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register a stylized form of the mark CHURRASCOS for restaurant services, finding that...more
On appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s decision on the issue of likelihood of confusion with regard to two parties’ paw...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a sua sponte order vacating its April 20, 2015, decision in In re Tam to consider the constitutionality of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which provides that the U. S....more
Issuing its second trademark decision in 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States in a 7–2 decision reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, concluding that an administrative ruling by the U.S. Patent...more