By Maritza C. Schaeffer
Titan Enterprises (QLD) Pty Ltd v. Cross, Federal Court of Australia(Case No. [2016] FCA 1241, October 19, 2016)
Section 229 of the Australian Trademarks Act 1995 (“Section 229”) defines the scope of privileged protection for communications with registered trademark attorneys. More
By Allison Strickland Ricketts
Effective March 21, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) plans to implement a post-registration audit program to obtain additional evidence of use of registered marks. The Office’s notice of final rulemaking can be viewed at www.gpo.gov.More
By Emily Weiss
Wise F&I, LLC, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., Consolidated Opp. No. 91226028 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2016)
In Wise F&I, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Co.,
Consolidated Opp. No. 91226028 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 23,More
By Leo Kittay
Emerald Cities Collaborative, Inc. v. Roese, No. 2016-1703, 2016 WL 7210145 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2016) (not precedential)
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Emerald Cities Collaborative, Inc. v. Roese provides a reminder that any agreement to assign a pending intent-to-use trademark application will be closely scrutinized to determine whether the transfer violates the statutory prohibition against trafficking in inchoate marks. More
In re Driven Innovations, Inc., Ser. No. 77073701 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2017) (not precedential)
The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently reversed a Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board (“TTAB”) decision in which the Board upheld a Section 2(e)(1)
descriptiveness refusal for the DOTBLOG mark. More
By Jessica Vosgerchian
Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. adidas AG, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1640 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
On appeal by Christian
Faith Fellowship Church (the “Church”), the Federal Circuit reversed a judgment
by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelling the Church’s trademarks for
failure to use them in commerce before registration. More
By Susan Upton Douglass
In re. Jobdiva, Inc., 121 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Registrant, JobDiva, owned registrations for “personnel placement and recruitment,” but submitted as a specimen a web printout showing that it offered software on a platform (SaaS) that allowed subscribers to locate pertinent jobs. More
By Charles T.J. Weigell, III
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016)
The ongoing design patent infringement action between Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics, Co. (“Samsung”), over smartphone designs took yet another turn on December 1,More
By Karen Lim
Prius Auto Industries Ltd v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (RFA (OS) 62/2016)
We update our previous article on the July 2016 ruling by a single judge of the High Court of Delhi recognizing Toyota’s unregistered PRIUS mark as well known worldwide:More