1 hour Ethics MCLE – Practicing Legal Civility in Virtual Communications, especially when the “Connection is Poor”

Join us in watching this webinar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUWbCZj4WHk After, we will discuss our various thoughts and perspectives on watching ourselves practice law, before our very eyes and behaving civilly when the "connection is poor." We will discuss this webinar on November 15, 2021 via Teams and in-person for those wishing to attend. All are welcome to [...]

By |2021-11-14T21:09:51-08:00November 14th, 2021|Litigation, Trademark, Likelihood of Confusion|0 Comments

TTAB Holds Reckless Disregard Sufficient to Prove Fraud; Ninth Circuit Reverses Copyright Defense Verdict Based on De Minimus Use of Photograph

On Monday, November 8, 2021, Chris Kopitzke will lead a discussion of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling that reckless disregard satisfies the requisite deceptive intent to establish fraud on the USPTO, and the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of de minimus use by an infringer as a defense to the admitted copying of an entire [...]

By |2021-11-05T11:00:43-07:00November 5th, 2021|Trademark|0 Comments

European IP Topics Highlighted at the ECTA Annual Conference

At SoCal IP Law Group LLP we protect the intellectual property rights of our clients in the US and internationally.  We rely on our foreign associates to protect our clients’ IP in their jurisdictions.  To maintain ongoing, strong relationships with our trusted foreign associates and keep up to date on current US and international IP [...]

By |2021-10-27T17:42:49-07:00October 27th, 2021|Trademark|0 Comments

Lanham Act Puffery and Foreign Jurisdictional Issues

Which Pizza has better ingredients and who is allowed to say so? Our two cases are Lanham Act court of appeals cases. The first, Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l., 227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir 2000) (here), from the Fifth Circuit in 2000, relates to Pizza Hut’s claim the Papa John’s advertising using the phrase [...]

By |2021-10-25T11:13:59-07:00October 22nd, 2021|Litigation, Trademark, Likelihood of Confusion|0 Comments

The Law and Science of Impaired Driving (Competence MCLE)

Please join us on Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:00 pm, where we will watch a video presentation on Substance Abuse - The Law and Science of Impaired Driving (Competence MCLE) by Eric Ganci, of CG Law, hosted by the San Diego Law Library and originally aired on December 16, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4oTfHvKocQ SAN DIEGO COUNTY [...]

By |2021-10-14T16:56:48-07:00October 14th, 2021|Detection/Prevention of Substance Abuse|0 Comments

SoCalIP Law Institute Weekly Meeting – October 4, 2021 – Professional Responsibility and Use of Technology (Ethics MCLE)

Please join us on Monday, October 4, 2021 at 1:00 pm, where we will watch a video presentation on Professional Responsibility and Use of Technology by Nicole Clark, CEO of Trellis Research, Inc., hosted by the San Diego Law Library and originally aired on August 5, 2021. (video here) Please RSVP to Join the Discussion [...]

By |2021-09-29T14:10:32-07:00September 29th, 2021|Ethics|0 Comments

USPTO Crackdown on Trademark Scammers Amazon Crackdown on Counterfeiters

Please join us 9/27/2021 at 1:00pm for a discussion: United States Patent and Trademark Office Crackdown on Scammers. For years, owners of United States Trademark Registrations have been plagued by scam letters requesting payments to renews trademark registrations. Though trademark registrations must be renewed, these letters did not come from the actual USPTO but a [...]

Prosecuting Chinese Counterfeiters: New Enforcement Strategies Learned from Fendi v. Yilang at Shanghai Higher People’s Court

The FENDI Decision is out! After 5 long years, the Shanghai High Court issued its final judgement in the case of Fendi v. Yi Lang. Defendant Yi Lang (no relative of this week's presenter, SoCal IP Partner Marina Lang) can no longer operate his "Fendi" stores in China, stocked with parallel goods.  We will discuss [...]

Unmarked Vape Pens and No-Name Pianos with Fake Names

This week we have a pair of IP cases about marking. First, a patent case, Lubby Holdings v Chung, where a vape device company should have marked its products with the patent number. Second, a trademark case, Piano Factory v Schiedmayer Celesta, in which a piano vendor marked its cheap pianos with a fancy name. [...]

Go to Top