TTAB

January 8, 2018 Trademark Office’s Bar on Immoral or Scandalous Marks is Unconstitutional Under the First Amendment ; Is DRIVEWISE confusingly similar with auto technology and insurance?

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, January 8, 2018, we will discuss the following cases: In Re Brunetti, (CAFC, December 15, 2017) (available here). Applicant tried to register the mark FUCT for clothing. The Examining attorney refused registration and the TTAB affirmed the refusal based on § 2(a) of the Lanham Act [...]

By |2018-01-08T09:18:01-07:00January 4th, 2018|Trademark, TTAB, Likelihood of Confusion|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: July 31, 2017 :: Clothing Trademarks ; Functional Designs

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 31, 2017, we will discuss the following cases: In re Critelli, (TTAB. July 24, 2017) (available here). The USPTO refused to register the mark LAVA for outdoor survival clothing. LAVA ACCESSORIES had already been registered for "scarfs; travel clothing contained in a package comprising reversible jackets, pants, skirts, [...]

By |2017-07-26T09:31:05-07:00July 26th, 2017|Trademark, TTAB, Invalidity, Likelihood of Confusion|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: July 24, 2017 :: Law Firm Trademarks ; Expert Testimony and Claim Scope

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 24, 2017, we will discuss the following cases: Merchant & Gould P.C. v. MG-IP Law, P.C. (TTAB decision April 19, 2017) (available here). An IP law firm filed for a trademark to the name MG-IP.  Another IP law firm, Merchant and Gould, petitioned for cancellation of [...]

SoCal IP Institute :: June 26, 2017 ::Disparagement Clause of Lanham Act Facially Unconstitutional; What Does “Substantial Portion” of Components to a Patented Invention Mean?

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, June 26, 2017, we will discuss the following cases: Matal v. Tam (Supreme Court, June 19, 2017) (available here). A rock group known as “The Slants” chose their band name in order to reclaim the term from its racist origins. The Trademark Office denied the band’s registration [...]

SoCal IP Institute :: February 6, 2017 :: CA finds attorney bills can be privileged and a trademark registration for white gunpowder

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, February 6, 2017, we will discuss the following: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Cal., December 29, 2016) (available here).  Reversing a lower court opinion, the California Supreme Court found that attorney billing invoices for work in pending and [...]

By |2017-01-31T10:26:22-07:00January 31st, 2017|Trademark, TTAB, Acquired Distintiveness|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: Nov. 28, 2016 :: Notification in Inter Partes Review and Use of Trademark in Sale of Two Hats

There will be no SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, November 21, 2016. At our next SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, Nov. 28, 2016, we will discuss the following: In re Nuvasive, Inc. (Fed. Cir. November 9, 2016) (available here).  Medtronic filed petitions for inter partes review of Nuvasive's patents related to spinal fusion [...]

By |2016-11-17T10:11:41-07:00November 17th, 2016|Patent, Trademark, TTAB, Use in Commerce, Inter Partes Review|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: Nov. 14, 2016 :: CSA’s Applicability to Trademark Applications and IPR Partial Institution

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, Nov. 14, 2016, we will discuss the following: In re JJ206, LLC dab JuJu Joints (T.T.A.B. October 27, 2016) (available here).  JuJu sought to register the marks Powered by JuJu and JuJu Joints for goods in class 34 explicitly indicating that the mark would be used in connection [...]

By |2016-11-11T15:45:46-07:00November 11th, 2016|Patent, Trademark, TTAB, Use in Commerce, Inter Partes Review|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: April 18, 2016 :: Mark Fails to Prove Acquired Distinctiveness at TTAB; Google Adwords Don’t Infringe

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 18, 2016, we will discuss the following cases: Ayoub, Inc. and Ayoub Supply, LLC v. ACS Ayoub Carpet Service (TTAB March 31, 2016) (citable decision) (available here).  In an opposition proceeding, applicant could not demonstrate that "Ayoub" had acquired distinctiveness due to lack of substantially exclusive use, [...]