New Trademark and Copyright Decisions – Monday, March 8, 2021

New Trademark and Copyright Decisions: TTAB Rejects Express Abandonment of Application “Without Prejudice” After Adverse Final Decision Ninth Circuit Decision Takes Surprising Turn in Considering Copyright Damages Against Defendants with Joint and Several Liability In re Information Builders, Inc., Serial No. 87,753,964 (Feb. 25, 2021) (TTAB) [precedential], available here. When can an application be abandoned [...]

By |2021-03-07T12:17:57-08:00March 6th, 2021|Trademark, TTAB, Likelihood of Confusion, Deceptive|0 Comments

Beginnings of a Federal Court Litigation – Monday, March 1, 2021

All are invited to attend our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, March 1, 2021 a 1:00 pm Pacific.  Due to the Covid-19 situation the meeting will be conducted online via video conference. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit.  If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Elisha Manzur [...]

By |2021-02-27T13:48:23-08:00February 27th, 2021|Trademark, TTAB, Likelihood of Confusion, Deceptive|0 Comments

Trademark Deceptiveness and Confusion – SoCal IP Institute – Monday, February 22, 2021

Recent Trademark Rulings on Trademark Deceptiveness and Confusion All are invited to attend our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, February 22, 2021 a 1:00 pm Pacific.  Due to the Covid-19 situation the meeting will be conducted online via video conference. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit.  If you will [...]

By |2021-02-20T14:50:12-08:00February 20th, 2021|Trademark, TTAB, Likelihood of Confusion, Deceptive|0 Comments

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 |2018-01-08T09:18:01-08:00January 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 |2017-01-31T10:26:22-08:00January 31st, 2017|Trademark, TTAB, Acquired Distintiveness|0 Comments
Go to Top