Here’s an update to my comment on In re Tam published a couple of weeks ago. In a letter to a clerk for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the pending Trademark Office appellate case In re Brunetti (CAFC No. 2015-1109), the U.S. Department of Justice concedes that the CAFC’s recent decision in In re Tam forecloses enforcement … Continue Reading
If you felt a rumble during the early hours of Tuesday, December 22, that was the earthquake touched off by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a long-debated and high profile portion of the nation’s trademark law is unconstitutional. Depending on your point of view, it was either a great day … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
After several years of negotiation, a provisional agreement concerning a number of changes to European Community trademark practice was reached by the European Commission, Parliament, and Council in April 2015. One key change is a proposal to do away with the current application and renewal fee structure. Currently, the application filing fee includes three trademark … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
A month ago, the U.S. Supreme Court came down with its first pure trademark matter opinion in many years (false advertising cases are in a separate category for the purposes of this article). The trademark bar was all a twitter—literally (tweeting through Twitter) and figuratively. But for the average consumer, and even sophisticated business executive, … Continue Reading
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two important trademark cases: Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank and B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries. In Hana, the Court considers the “tacking” doctrine, whereby mark owners attempt to “tack” the priority of an earlier-used mark onto a later-adopted mark in order to extend back in time the priority … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
Under Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc., (“Crumbs“), the warning of caveat emptor applies to purchasers of trademarks pursuant to a sale under 11 U.S.C. Sections 363(b) and (f), where the trademarks are subject to existing licensing agreements. The Chapter 11 debtors obtained an order approving the sale of substantially all of their assets, including trademarks (but specifically excluding trademark … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
Press Release-10.13.14 PORTLAND, Ore. – Miller Nash LLP announced today that it has filed a trademark-infringement lawsuit against online retailer Gilt Groupe, Inc., a $500 million company based in New York. Miller Nash filed the suit on behalf of northwest Portland boutique Gilt and its founder, Paula Bixel. Gilt, which sells local, sustainable and unique … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
In my previous posts (September 25: Use, September 29: Costs & Complexities), we discussed how use and cost considerations affect the development of a global branding strategy. Since there is no ‘bar date’ for applying for a trademark, a sensible approach is to apply only in the country (or countries) where your mark is being used, and … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
In my September 25th post (Going Global or Staying Local: Determining What Level of Trademark is Right for Your Business: Use), we discussed the use requirements for filing at the local, national, and international level. While use is perhaps the biggest factor in determining where you can legally seek trademark protection, cost is certainty the … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
You’ve done the hard work in selecting an incredible brand name that will promote your business and bring it success (and hopefully, you’ve also cleared it to make sure no one else beat you to that great name). Now, it’s time to protect your investment by registering for trademark protection, but where to begin? Trademarks … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
I was in Hong Kong attending the International Trademark Association (INTA) annual meeting a couple of weeks ago. This was the first annual meeting held in Asia. And the new INTA executive director made it clear that INTA is taking seriously the “international” aspect, with every 3rd year meeting being held outside of North America. … Continue Reading
Most people know Tiffany and Company (or “Tiffany & Co.”) and associate that company and the word “Tiffany” with high-end jewelry. But a recent ruling out of the Southern District of New York indicates that “Tiffany” as a term to describe engagement ring settings may have become generic (and therefore no longer a protectable trademark … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
It is a provocative title. Typically, brand (trademark) owners would not want to abandon their trademarks. Why would they unless there is a really good reason to voluntarily abandon a mark (such as an action taken to settle a dispute)? But what about brand name changes where the owner is still using the historic brand? … Continue Reading
Colorado announced this week that it earned about $3.5 million in taxes and fees from its legalized-marijuana industry in its first month of sales, which translates into about $14 million in gross sales revenue in January. Retail sales of state-sanctioned marijuana are set to start in Washington later this year. And of course, cannabis consumers will want … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
Section 37 of the Lanham Action provides that cancellation is available “in any action involving a registered mark.” Many attorneys have interpreted that section to mean that cancellation of a registered mark can be an independent basis for claim. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that is not the correct interpretation … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
When starting a business or launching a new product, one of the first critical decisions is adopting a name. Often, this name is then registered to protect its intellectual property rights (its branding) and prevent copying. Sometimes, however, what seems like a great business name turns out to be a poor choice for a trademark, … Continue Reading
Here in Seattle, “12th Man” pride has exploded in the last month, capped by the Seattle Seahawks’ dominating win over the Denver Broncos in the Super Bowl. But does flying the “12th Man” flag actually signify support for the Seahawks? According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it does not. Instead, that trademark has … Continue Reading
