On June 30, 2020, the US Supreme Court held that a “generic.com” mark (a generic term in combination with “.com”) could be eligible for federal trademark registration, refusing to adopt the US Patent and Trademark Office’s...more
7/1/2020
/ Acquired Distinctiveness ,
Appeals ,
Booking.com ,
Domain Name Registration ,
Domain Names ,
Generic Marks ,
Lanham Act ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
United States Patent and Trademark Office v Booking.com BV ,
USPTO
On April 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified that the Lanham Act does not require a showing of willful trademark infringement as a statutory prerequisite for a plaintiff to recover a defendant’s profits...more
4/29/2020
/ § 1125(a) ,
§ 1125(c) ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Charge-Filing Preconditions ,
Compensatory Awards ,
Dilution ,
Lanham Act ,
Lost Profits ,
Remand ,
Remedies ,
Romag Fasteners v Fossil ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
Vacated ,
Willful Infringement
On June 24, 2019, the US Supreme Court clarified that the Lanham Act’s bar on “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment because it discriminates based on viewpoint. The decision followed the Supreme...more
6/26/2019
/ Appeals ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Iancu v. Brunetti ,
Lanham Act ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
Scandalous/Immoral Marks ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO ,
Viewpoint Discrimination
On June 19, 2017, the US Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam unanimously affirmed a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which precludes “disparaging” trademark...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, en banc, has ruled that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act precluding “disparaging” trademark registrations is unconstitutional, rejecting the argument that trademark...more
On March 2, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its first-ever ruling addressing use requirements for registering service marks. The court held that offering a service, without the actual rendering...more