Last month I mentioned a trademark bullying webinar available through Minnesota Continuing Legal Education (MinnCLE), here. Tuition was $95 for 75 minutes of action-packed discussion on this very hot topic, so, a real bargain.
Now, MinnCLE is graciously making it available for viewing free, here, so enjoy. (No CLE credit).
By way of
"Just because you can," is rarely a good reason to support a decision that really matters. This principle is no less true in the trademark world than it is elsewhere.
So, relying on your own navigation of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) online search database without also seeking a trademark attorney’s competent analysis of the
—Alan Bergstrom, Beyond Philosophy
IHOP (International House of Pancakes) recently filed a lawsuit to prevent another group, International House of Prayer, from using its trademarked acronym. According to the trademark infringement filing, IHOP has repeatedly asked the religious group to drop the use of the acronym IHOP, which is a registered trademark for its
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?
Last September, in my blog post entitled "What Does Trademarked Mean to You?," I wrote:
More than a few trademark types cringe when their clients or others say things like "let’s trademark it," "they didn’t trademark their logo," or "we don’t want to trademark this name," and, when they ask questions like "is
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.
What do you think, is Overstock.com selling bling with the Fordless blue oval logo?
As you may recall from my post back in September, Ford Motor Company is attempting to register the below shown non-verbal logo as a trademark for a variety of goods in Int’l Class 12:
And, as you may recall from Dan’s I See Blue Ovals post back in August, there are far more than a handful of blue oval logos out there besides this one:
The pending Fordless blue oval intent-to-use trademark application recently was examined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and on October 23, 2009, the PTO found no substantive bases for refusal, but instead it issued an initial refusal noting only a couple of purely procedural or technical deficiencies, concerning the wording in the lengthy description of goods and the need for Ford to submit a claim of ownership to some related registrations (here, here, and here).Continue Reading More On The Fordless Blue Oval
Do you suppose Dial has any regrets in letting the clock logo go?Continue Reading Dialing in on Trademark Abandonment?
Trademark types: As promised, here are some of my more detailed thoughts and perspectives (at least for the time being) on the most significant trademark case of the year: In re Bose.
Thanks to Thomson Reuters for asking me to share them with their readers. I look forward to some great dialogue
What does this image signify to you?
For full credit, please answer the question before peeking back at Dan’s popular post called “I See Blue Ovals.”Continue Reading Blue Oval, But Look Mom, No Words!
