Blog

An opposition plaintiff must demonstrate: (i) an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the opposition statute; and (ii) proximate causation. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U....

CeramTec manufactures artificial hip components used to replace damaged bone and cartilage in hip replacement procedures. The hip components are made from a zirconiatoughened alumina (“ZTA”) ceramic that contains, among other things, chromium oxide (chromia). The amount of chromia in the ZTA ceramic affects its coloring. The range of chromia claimed in CeramTec's patent can produce a variety of colors, one of which is pink.

In view of Opposer’s failure to submit proof of its alleged common law rights or its registration or applications, together with Applicant’s denials in its Answer of such allegations, we find that Opposer has failed to prove that it is statutorily entitled to bring this opposition proceeding.

TTAB found that, by not claiming any specific "guitar indicia" for the structure upon which the six beams of light are projected, that structure is not part of the mark, and cannot serve to inform consumers about what the mark means or represents. By "intentionally omitting" that physical structure, the beams of light shining skyward from an undefined structure would not be distinctive unless "presented with sufficient guitar indicia to allow consumers to make a connection between the beams of light and a guitar." 

"any confusion due to proximity or common reference to historical lore is not the type of confusion that trademark owners may prevent." US Ghost Adventures, LLC v. Miss Lizzie’s Coffee LLC, No. 23-2000, __ F.4th __ (1st Cir. Nov. 15, 2024). Ghost Adventures does not own the lore of Lizzie Borden, and Ghost Adventures' registration of the "Lizzie Borden" mark did not prohibit other businesses from marketing themselves by the use of Lizzie Borden's story. 

Misuse of the trademark registration symbol, however, could adversely affect the ability to register the mark with the USPTO or enforce the trademark against others, if an intent to deceive can be established. 

the court awarded only $940 in statutory damages, and denied attorneys' fees, because the "efforts [of Plaintiff’s counsel] led to what can only be described as a suboptimal, and yet predictable, result." 

[E]vidence of extensive registration by third parties of “SUN” formative marks for goods identical or related to those identified in the cited registration demonstrates that the cited mark is conceptually weak to such an extent that it is entitled to a very narrow scope of protection.

A mobile phone screen with a tab that would direct a user to a website, where the user would then receive SAAS services relating to the user’s account, could show use of a downloadable mobile phone application, but not SAAS because such an indirect “chain-of-events” type of use would not meet the statutory definition of a service mark.

in comparing Ed Sheeran's Thinking Out Loud with respect to Marvin Gaye's Let’s Get It On, "the allegedly infringing elements here boil down to a similar, but not identical, four-chord progression paired with a commonplace harmonic syncopation, neither of which is sufficiently original to be protectable in isolation, nor is their combination" and that "the songs are not substantially similar taken as a whole." 

While emblazoning a logo on the front of a t-shirt or hoodie does not preclude the logo from functioning as a source identifier in the minds of the consuming public, it could lead to the conclusion that the emblazoned logo is mere ornamentation that does not function as a trademark mark.  There ...

PHYSICIANCARE, when considered in relation to the identified services that provide medical and clinical information from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to physicians in order to provide care for patients, presents a meaning that requires some measure of imagination and mental pause

Judge Desai suggested that the Ninth Circuit should reconsider the holding in Network Automation that keyword bidding and purchasing constitutes a “use in commerce” under the Lanham Act because, without more, “the buyer of keywords does not in any way display a trademark to sell or advertise services.”

Absent a carve-out condition otherwise, a covenant not to sue gives the recipient authority to sell an item, and a resulting authorized sale automatically exhausts the patentholder’s rights and prohibits suit against the buyer, so the Tenth Circuit held

Notably, POP! immediately follows the words HARRY & DAVID. In this location, the term POP!, with its exclamation point, forms an interjection, modifying and linking the preceding words together in a distinct grammatical phrase, HARRY & DAVID POP!

infer from the requirement to deliver COLA labels to Applicant that the parties have an agreement and system to avoid confusion as regards use of WATERLOO for carbonated alcoholic beverages. We find that these provisions are substantively and essentially efforts to avoid actual and future confusion

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California reversed the holding of genericness, but affirmed the holding that SPECTACLES was merely descriptive with inadequate evidence of secondary meaning. Snap Inc. v. Vidal, No. 2:22-cv-00085-SK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2024). 

the judge in this case "gives the benefit of the doubt to plaintiffs on motions to dismiss, only to hammer them on summary judgment if their evidence doesn’t hold up to scrutiny." 

the complaint in Walgreen Co. v. Walgreen Health Solutions LLC, No. 1:23-cv-17067 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024) indicated that attempts to settle matters out of court had been initiated “shortly after” the plaintiffs learned of the alleged infringement. But, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the district court found that when exactly the plaintiff actually knew of the allegedly infringing use—or if a delay was inexcusable—was unclear and plausibly within the relevant statute of limitations.

A Canadian company, Casa Bonita Foods Inc., filed a trademark application for the CASA BONITA mark for "Tortillas" and snack foods on April 20, 2021. But there were two prior CASA BONITA trademark registrations for "restaurant services." The registrations recently were assigned to The Beautiful H...

It appears that the district court believed patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to be a threshold inquiry that it had a duty to address—even in the silence of the parties—akin to, for example, subject-matter jurisdiction. But the presumption of validity afforded to patents under § 282 applies equally to all grounds of validity, including the eligibility of the claimed subject-matter

The [Contour patent] claims are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem. The written description discloses improving POV camera technology through specific means of generating high- and low-quality video streams in parallel and transferring a low-quality video stream to a remote device, and the claims reflect this improvement. 

"the Video has a very low degree of 'transformativeness,' if any at all"--noting that the Video “is best described as a wholesale copying of music to accompany a political campaign ad.” The Video does not alter the Electric Avenue song or use Electric Avenue as a vehicle to deliver its satirical message, and “makes no effort to poke fun at the song or Grant.” The Court concluded that the Trump defendants “have offered no justification for their extensive borrowing.” 

Because of the different connotations, CATO and KATO would not engender the same commercial impression to anyone who knows the meaning of either term. For those consumers unfamiliar with either term, KATO would still manifest a different commercial impression, with a more Japanese aura.

The TTAB noted that the origin story of the applied-for "LEATHER MAN LTD. * ESSEX, CT" mark calls to mind the legend of the “old Leather [M]an, … a vagabond [who] was famous for the leather suit of clothes he wore” and who became "well-known" in the neighboring villages and towns of Essex, Connecticut.