Today's Date: August 21, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Posts Tagged ‘ trademark ’

Leason Ellis Continues to Fight Deceptive Trademark Practices

Posted: Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 @ 9:00 am | Written by Gene Quinn & Steve Brachmann | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in: Attorneys, Gene Quinn, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Law Firms, Steve Brachmann, Trademark

Peter Sloane

In a memorandum decision handed down July 2, 2014, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, most of the plaintiff claims in case 7:13-cv-02880, Leason Ellis LLP v. Patent & Trademark Agency LLC have been allowed to proceed in the face of the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The multi-count Federal Complaint filed in April 2013 alleged that the defendants marketed their promotional materials to cause consumers to wrongly believe that it is an official governmental entity. The complaint asserted claims of federal unfair competition under 15 USC 1125(a), federal false advertising under 15 USC 1125(a) and New  York statutory law, unfair competition under New York common law, deceptive acts and practices under New York statutory law, and tortious interference with prospective economic relations. The complaint also specifically alleges that the defendants are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

The complaint explained that Leason Ellis, which is a well regarded intellectual property firm particularly in the trademark law space, frequently “receives inquiries from clients who have received unsolicited offers for trademark-related services in the United States from various entities located in the U.S. and abroad.” The complaint goes on to further state: “Trademark scams are not new. The International Trademark Association (“INTA”)… has previously warned trademark owners about unsolicited offers for trademark-related services in the United States.



What is Intellectual Property?

Posted: Saturday, Jul 19, 2014 @ 11:56 am | Written by Gene Quinn | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Educational Information for Inventors, Gene Quinn, Inventors Information, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles

Generally speaking, “intellectual property” is probably best thought of (at least form a conceptual standpoint) as creations of the mind that are given the legal rights often associated with real or personal property. The rights that are obtained by the creator are a function of statutory law (i.e., law created by the legislature). These statutes may be federal or state laws, or in some instance both federal and state law govern various aspect of a single type of intellectual property.

The term intellectual property itself is now commonly used to refer to the bundle of rights conferred by each of the following fields of law: (1) patent law; (2) copyright law; (3) trade secret law; (4) the right of publicity; and (5) trademark and unfair competition law. Some people confuse these areas of intellectual property law, and although there may be some similarities among these kinds of intellectual property protection, they are different and serve different purposes.



Legally Suspect TTAB Decision Cancels Redskins Trademark

Posted: Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 @ 6:00 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 25 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Quinn, Government, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, USPTO

Yesterday the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a decision in Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc., which canceled a variety of U.S. federal trademarks that were issued to the Washington Redskins football team between 1967 and 1990. The trademarks in question consisted in whole or in part of the term REDSKINS for professional football-related services. The TTAB ruled that these trademarks were inappropriately granted on the ground that the registrations were obtained contrary to Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibits registration of marks that may disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute.

While this decision will be widely cheered by those who proclaim the virtues of political correctness, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that from a legal standpoint this decision is clearly wrong.

From a purely legal standpoint there is absolutely no valid reason to have canceled the trademarks in question, but this is the second time the TTAB has canceled these same trademarks. Ultimately, the previous challenge was reversed as the result of laches because the challengers waited too long to bring the challenge. Laches was not an issue in this case, but previously federal courts also question the evidence, or lack thereof, relied upon the challenge the trademarks. See Redskins Can Keep Trademark.



SCOTUS: FDA Regulations No Bar to Lanham Act Claims

Posted: Thursday, Jun 12, 2014 @ 6:54 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Advertising, False Advertising, Food & Drug Administration, Gene Quinn, Government, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark, US Supreme Court

Justice Kennedy

Earlier today the United States Supreme Court issued another of the many intellectual property related decisions the Court took during the October 2013 term. In this case, POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company, the Supreme Court reversed a decision from the Ninth Circuit that held that within the realm of labeling for food and beverages, a Lanham Act claim asserting that the label is deceptive and misleading is precluded by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The Supreme Court ruled that a claim brought pursuant to the Lanham Act, which makes deceptive and misleading advertising actionable under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), is not precluded by the FDCA, which forbids the misbranding of food, including by means of false or misleading labeling.

This case arose relating to the belief of POM that claims made by the Coca-Cola Company were misleading with respect to a juice blend sold by Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid division. The juice sold by Coca-Cola prominently displays the words “pomegranate blueberry,” but in truth the product contains only .3% pomegranate juice and only .2% blueberry juice.

In a unanimous ruling delivered by Justice Kennedy (minus Justice Breyer who took no part in the decision) explained that there is no text within the statutes that would support the contention that the FDCA precludes Lanham Act claims. Indeed, the Supreme Court specifically found the FDCA and the Lanham Act to complement each other.



Narrow Internet Personal Jurisdiction Leads to Trademark Infringement Case Dismissed

Posted: Monday, Jun 9, 2014 @ 6:12 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Quinn, Internet, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark

The United States Federal District Court for the District of Nevada has dismissed a trademark infringement lawsuit against a foreign Internet poker site in a ruling that signals a rather substantial win for Internet businesses at large. The decision narrows the types of contacts that would confer general jurisdiction against foreign companies. The case is Best Odds Corp. vs iBus Media Limited, docket number 2:13-cv-020080RCJ-VCF.

Nevada-based online poker news site Best Odds Corp. sued the Isle of Man-based iBus Media Holdings for infringement of its MacPoker ® trademark, claiming that the Nevada courts had general jurisdiction over iBus Media’s poker news sites. Best Odds pointed to the defendants’ media kit, which alleged a significant U.S. presence. The court disagreed that these promotional statements conferred general jurisdiction over iBus Media.

In a June 4, 2014, ruling Judge Robert C. Jones granted iBus Media Holdings’ motion for dismissal of Best Odds Corp.’s trademark infringement lawsuit. Judge Jones said the plaintiff failed to make a case that Nevada courts had general jurisdiction over the foreign-based iBus Media, citing the Supreme Court’s recent Daimler AG v. Bauman decision, which Jones said “clarified that the reach of general jurisdiction is narrower than had been supposed in lower courts for many years.”



PTO Proposes Reducing Certain Trademark Fees to Lower Costs

Posted: Friday, May 9, 2014 @ 1:49 pm | Written by U.S.P.T.O. | Comments Off
| Tags: , ,
Posted in: Government, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark, USPTO

Washington – The U.S. Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to reduce fees for many new trademark applications and most renewals of registration. USPTO also proposes a new Trademark Electronic Application System Reduced Fee (TEAS RF) filing option in addition to reducing filing fees for both applications filed using the current TEAS Plus option and applications for renewal of a registration filed through TEAS.

“The proposed fee reductions advance the USPTO’s core mission of serving the public in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible,” said Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee. “Lower fees will lessen the burden for entrepreneurs to obtain the crucial trademark protection they need to grow their businesses, while increased electronic processing improves agency efficiency.”



USPTO Trademark Roundtable: Amendments to Identifications of Goods and Services Due to Technology Evolution

Posted: Monday, Apr 7, 2014 @ 7:45 am | Written by U.S.P.T.O. | Comments Off
| Tags: , ,
Posted in: Government, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark, USPTO

As part of the Trademark Operation’s continuing series of roundtable discussions to gather stakeholder views on important issues, a roundtable discussion about USPTO’s practice regarding amendments to identifications of goods and services due to technology evolution will be held on Friday, April 11, from 2 – 3 pm.  The session will be open to the public and webcast.   The event will take place in the Madison Auditorium at the USPTO offices, located at 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

Background

Under §7(e) of the Trademark Act, a registration based on an application under §1 or §44 of the Trademark Act may be amended for good cause upon application of the owner and payment of the prescribed fee, provided the amendment does not materially alter the character of the mark.[1]  15 U.S.C. §1058(e).  With respect to the identification of goods/services, an identification may be amended to restrict the identification or change it in ways that would not require republication of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.173(e).  However, no goods/services may be added to a registration by amendment.  Moreover, under current USPTO practice, changed circumstances, such as new technology, will not render acceptable an amendment that is not otherwise permissible.  TMEP §1609.03.



Seven IP Cases Slated on Supreme Court Oral Argument Calendar

Posted: Tuesday, Feb 25, 2014 @ 9:51 am | Written by AIPLA | Comments Off
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: AIPLA, Copyright, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, Trademark, US Supreme Court

The oral argument schedule for the Supreme Court over the next few months is heavy on intellectual property cases.

The Court will hear oral argument as follows: on February 26, in two cases on granting (Octane Fitness) and reviewing (Highmark) attorneys’ fee awards; on March 31, in a case (Alice Corp.) on patent eligibility of system and computer-implemented method claims; on April 21, in a case (POM Wonderful) on claims under Section 43 of the Lanham Act challenging labels regulated by the Food and Drug Administration; on April 22, in a case (Aereo) on whether a provider of broadcast television programming over the Internet violates a copyright owner’s public performance right; on April 28, in a case (Nautilus) on the proper standard for finding indefiniteness invalidity for patents; and on April 30, in a case (Limelight) on joint liability for method claim infringement where all of the claimed steps are performed but not by a single entity.