News & Analysis as of

Lanham Act › Commerce Clause

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

Unitary Design Mark Rescues a Phrase Which Failed To Function As A Trademark

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets on

In a recent decision on remand from the Federal Circuit, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) rejected Petitioner adidas AG’s (“adidas”) claim that Respondent Christian Faith Fellowship Church (“CFFC”) abandoned its...more

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Clarifies What Constitutes Use “In Commerce” Under the Lanham Act

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints on

On November 14, 2016, the Federal Circuit clarified confusion regarding what is necessary to satisfy the registration requirement that a mark be used “in commerce.”...more

Knobbe Martens

More Than Zero: Under the Lanham Act, One Interstate Sale Qualifies as Actual Use of a Trademark in Commerce

Knobbe Martens on

In 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected shoe manufacturer Adidas’s application to trademark the phrase “ADIZERO,” due to a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark: “ADD A ZERO,” a clothing trademark held...more

Orrick - Trade Secrets Group

Despite The Cheers, The Defend Trade Secrets Act Bill Has Holes: What’s A Plaintiff To Do If It Passes?

Orrick - Trade Secrets Group on

State court or federal court? If the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014 (DTSA) (S. 2267, introduced on April 29, 2014) becomes law, then trade secrets plaintiffs — not just those who can maintain diversity jurisdiction — could...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide