By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
Did you know you can federally register a scent as a brand? Hasbro, Inc.’s recent registration of the smell of Play-Doh “toy modeling compounds” has highlighted one of the lesser-known brand categories: scents. The United States defines a trademark as any “word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof…to identify and distinguish his or … Continue Reading
Music City Metals (MCM) built a thriving business designing and selling replacement parts for name-brand BBQ grills. Too good, it turns out, as a number of foreign competitors also jumped into the game, copying MCM’s own replacement parts and selling those replacements for the replacements. While MCM thought it was fine to market itself as … Continue Reading
As the restaurant industry grows, and as customers pay more attention to local and artisan foods and celebrity chefs, there’s an increased interest in protecting recipes, signature dishes, and restaurant brands as intellectual property. In an article for Modern Restaurant Management, Alicia Bell discusses what restaurant owners can do to protect their intellectual property. To … Continue Reading
In the wake of Matal v. Tam, where the Supremes unanimously held that the “disparagement clause” in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unsurprisingly struck down the Lanham Act’s … Continue Reading
Fifty years ago, it was the “Summer of Love” in San Francisco, with Jefferson Airplane’s 1967 album “Surrealistic Pillow” providing the soundtrack. My how times have changed! Earlier this week, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California came out with its initial decision in Chaquico v. Freiberg, which involves the latest … Continue Reading
On June 26, 2017, a week after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the “disparagement clause” in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) has updated (Examination Guide 1-17) its … Continue Reading
Background Yesterday, six months after hearing oral argument (and nearly six years after Simon Tam filed his trademark application for “THE SLANTS”), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in In re Tam, holding that the disparagement clause in Section 2(a) of the Lanham … Continue Reading
On Wednesday, January 18, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lee v. Tam, a case reviewing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in In re Tam holding that the disparagement provision in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(a), was facially invalid under … Continue Reading
Continuing the precedent established last month by In Re JJ206, LLC dba JuJu Joints, the TTAB recently released its decision in In re Ultra Trimmer, LLC, which affirms the PTO’s increased vigilance of cannabis-related trade and service marks. Here, the applicant applied for the mark ULTRA TRIMMER for use with a “trimming machine for trimming leaves, … Continue Reading
Last week, Christian Faith Fellowship Church prevailed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on its appeal of a final judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that, in response to a petition filed by adidas AG (Adidas), cancelled its trademarks for failing to use the marks in commerce before … Continue Reading
After the Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) youthful experimentation with allowing trademark registrations for “processed plant matter for medicinal purposes, namely medical marijuana” in 2010, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has now made it clear that neither it nor the PTO is going to allow registration of cannabis-related trade or service marks, at least … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
Back in June, we shared that the U.S. Trademark Office announced a fee increase and it was intended to go into effect October 1, 2016. Well, the U.S. Trademark Office fees did not go up on October 1, 2016, but will go up (as previously announced) on January 14, 2017. All those filing with the U.S. Trademark … Continue Reading
The Founding Fathers ensconced intellectual property rights into the fabric of the original Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has long been concerned about so called “deadwood” on its register — registrations granted where the registration is not being used or not used on all goods/services identified in the registration, but the registration’s existence keeps others from obtaining registration protection for similar goods/services. This is particularly an … Continue Reading
On May 27, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced an adjustment to trademark fees that will take effect October 1, 2016 (the beginning of fiscal year 2017 for the U.S. Government). 81 Fed. Reg. 33619 (May 27, 2016). The good news for electronic filers using the USPTO’s TEAS and ESTTA filing systems, the fees are … Continue Reading
By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP on Posted in Trademarks
On April 4, 2016, the U.S. Trademark Office announced the long-awaited proposed Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) rule changes. The TTAB hears appeals from denial of trademark registrations (ex parte appeals) and holds trials between parties involving oppositions of pending trademark applications, cancellations of registered trademark, applications for concurrent use of a registered trademark, and interference proceedings … Continue Reading
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
