Simon Bennett and Rachel Cook Fox Williams LLP
Chocolate giants Nestle and Cadbury have been trading blows in the UK and European Courts for several years. This latest round in front of the UK Court of Appeal related to Cadbury’s application to register the color purple (to be specific Pantone 2685C) for the packaging of
“Trademark law is a complex, specialized area of law,” according to the International Trademark Association (INTA), as set forth in a recent communication to the USPTO.
So, I must ask, does substantial experience or the lack of substantial experience in handling trademark matters impact the current trademark bullying debate? And, if so, how?
Here
—Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch®
The intent of trademark law is fairly simple – avoid confusing consumers with brands, names, trademarks, packaging, and even domain names, which are so similar, consumers cannot determine the origin of the goods or services. In short, make sure what you are planning to use is not confusingly
Aaron Keller was busy yesterday making weighty predictions about the basis for our next economy: The Designed Economy.
As I prepare to provide attendees at the Midwest IP Institute tomorrow with a trademark fraud update — today, I thought I’d provide a preview — and even go out on a small limb — making a couple of predictions of my own, relating to the far more scintillating topic of trademark fraud before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
As you may recall last year, I wrote about the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC) groundbreaking decision In re Bose, here, here, here, and here, in which the CAFC rejected the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) less stringent "knew or should have known" negligence standard of fraud, instead coming down in favor of a much more stringent — and difficult to prove standard — subjective intent to deceive the USPTO.
Over the last year, much attention has been given to the fact that the CAFC left open and chose not to decide, in In re Bose, the question of whether a "reckless disregard for the truth" may suffice in proving the necessary subjective intent to deceive. Many argue that "reckless disregard" should suffice in proving fraud for the sake of the integrity of the U.S. trademark system, to ensure that trademark owners and their counsel are kept honest and/or don’t become lazy or complacent about the solemnity of the oath in their trademark filings.
Reading the tea leaves, I’m predicting that the TTAB will not wait for the CAFC to decide the issue and the TTAB will rule that "reckless disregard" constitutes a sufficient level of culpability to infer a specific intent to deceive. If so, what does that mean? What kind of trademark conduct might satisfy a "reckless disregard" standard?Continue Reading Trademark Fraud = Reckless Disregard For The Truth?
–Sharon Armstrong, Attorney
Early on in the days of the blog, I wrote a post about Method cleaning products and my fascination with the fact that cleaning products could have not only fans, but vocal, proud fans. To me, Method has always taken a “hey, we’re all in this together” approach to marketing, as
Seth Godin has an amazing knack for creating and spreading ideas that matter, mostly really good ones, by the way. I always look forward to his daily riffs and I have been known to spread some of his important ideas too when they overlap with things I happen to care a lot about.
When it comes to Mr.
–Sharon Armstrong, Attorney
Times. Garamond. Arial. Copperplate. Chances are that if you are reading this, you not only know what the four terms preceding this sentence mean; you probably use them throughout your daily life.
I’m talking about fonts. In the branding world, fonts add more than a little something extra to the words of