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. [...]

Prior Art Status of Printed Publications and Unclean Hands in TM Infringement

On Monday, August 12, Michael Harris will conduct a discussion of two cases, one dealing with the prior art status of a printed publication, and the other about unclean hands as a defense to trademark infringement. The 2021, Ninth Circuit case of Metal Jeans, Inc. v. Metal Sport, Inc. (case here) is the unclean hands case. [...]

By |2021-08-13T14:05:37-07:00August 13th, 2021|Litigation, Patent, Sanctions, Trademark, TTAB, Use in Commerce, Damages|0 Comments

Two Gotchas: Derivative Work Denied Copyright Registration; Insufficient Proof of Non-Use in Trademark Cancellation Action

On Monday, August 9, 2021, Chris Kopitzke will lead a discussion of the Copyright Office’s refusal to register the most recent version of the Golden Globe statuette, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that evidence submitted to prove non-use of a trademark was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of abandonment. In [...]

By |2021-08-05T21:16:43-07:00August 5th, 2021|Copyright, Litigation, Trademark, TTAB, Use in Commerce, Damages|0 Comments

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 [...]

Go to Top