Blog

What Kind of Judgment Was Offered Under Rule 68?   Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 68 encourages settlement by a defendant who offers to allow judgment on specified terms. See Felders v. Bairett, 885 F.3d 646, 651-52 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 5 (1985)). A Rule 68 offer of judgment […]

Read More

And When Were the Services Provided, MRS. COLORADO? 

A use-based trademark registration could be void if the trademark was not used for the identified services prior to the application filing date. See Aycock Eng’g Inc. v. Airflite, Inc., 560 F.3d 1350, 90 USPQ2d 1301, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also ShutEmDown Sports, Inc. v. Lacy, 102 USPQ2d 1036, 1045 (TTAB 2012) (citing Grand […]

Read More

Narrowing a Broader Limitation in the Same Claim Creates No Contradiction

A dependent claim narrows the independent claim from which it depends. Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). But “[a] dependent claim that contradicts, rather than narrows, the claim from which it depends is invalid.” Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1362 […]

Read More

Have Drinks with ZORRO (Whether Swashbuckler or Fox)

The TTAB recently affirmed a refusal to register VINEDO DE ZORRO, with “VINEDO” (which is Spanish for vineyard) disclaimed, for “limited-production, handmade, premium wine,” in International Class 33—in view of the previously-registered mark BAR ZORRO, with “BAR” disclaimed, for “restaurant and bar services,” in International Class 43. In re Vinedo de Zorro, LLC, Ser. No. […]

Read More

Labeling Toothpaste Tubes as “Recyclable” Plausibly Misleading 

In Smith v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 3d 837 (N.D. Cal. 2019), the court found plausible allegations that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the defendant’s claims of recyclability. In Smith, the defendant sold single-serve plastic coffee pods (“Pods”) that it labeled as “recyclable.” 393 F. Supp. 3d at 842. FAC ¶¶ 1–2. […]

Read More