Posts from ‘United States’
In In re Nielsen Business Media, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (“TTAB”) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register a mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. After considering and rejecting the applicant’s claim that the acquired distinctiveness of the applicant’s previously registered marks could “tack” onto the new mark, the TTAB agreed with the examiner’s finding that the mark THE BOLLYWOOD REPORTER (Serial Nos. 77223725 and 77223738) for entertainment news papers and online publications was merely descriptive of the goods. Continue Reading
In Texas Department of Transportation v. Richard Tucker, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) unanimously granted the Texas Department of Transportation’s (“TxDOT”) motion for summary judgment, holding no genuine issue of material fact existed and Richard Tucker’s (“Tucker”) mark was likely to cause confusion.
TxDOT and Tucker both claimed use of and registered the same mark, “DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS” for goods, specifically clothing. TxDOT, claiming priority of use and a likelihood of confusion under 15 U.S.C. § 1052, filed a petition to cancel Tucker’s registration and a notice of opposition against Tucker’s pending application under 15 U.S.C. § 1064 and 15 U.S.C. § 1063 respectively. The two cases were consolidated. Continue Reading
In Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Company, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed and remanded the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s (“District Court”) order dismissing Koninklijke Philips Electronic’s (“Philips”) complaint with prejudice.
The District Court affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ (the “Board”) decisions, finding its “reasons for denying or dismissing each motion were grounded in the application of the Board’s own procedures and regulations.” On appeal, the CAFC reversed and remanded the District Court’s decision. The CAFC held that the District Court improperly dismissed Philips’ complaint sua sponte, thereby entering a de facto summary judgment; wrongly dismissed Philips’ claim that the Board erroneously applied 37 C.F.R. §41.200(b); and improperly dismissed Philips’ claim that the Board erred in denying its contingent motion to find several of the competing applicant’s claims anticipated or obvious. Continue Reading
In ResQNet.Com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s (“District Court”) ruling that Lansa had infringed ResQNet.Com’s (“ResQNet”) patents; vacated and remanded the District Court’s damages award; and reversed the District Court’s Rule 11 sanction against ResQNet. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
