Posts Tagged: "trademark"

Two recent decisions dealing with high-end watches illustrate the fine line between permissible and infringing modifications when the final product bears a trademark of the original maker. As the trend of “upcycling” or “creative reuse” continues to grow, entrepreneurs should be aware of the potential pitfalls in modifying the products of others. Generally, the first sale or “exhaustion” doctrine protects a reseller of authentic goods from infringement liability—but only when the goods have not been materially altered in any manner and meet the trademark owner’s quality standards. There are, however, some circumstances where courts have found certain modifications to be permissible.

Russian businesses now hold the key to pilfering, producing and profiting from western technologies. As of Monday, March 7, the Russian government has legalized intellectual property (IP) theft. With this move, businesses in Russia can now violate IP rights, as they no longer need to compensate patent holders from “unfriendly countries.” The list of “unfriendly countries” includes the United States, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan and all 27 European Union (EU) member countries. Russia has faced growing isolation from the Western world following President Vladmir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The United States, EU member countries and others recently initiated sanctions against Russia and have enacted crippling trade limitations. Currently, Russia is sufficiently meeting its supply and demand needs for agriculture, energy and natural resources. However, Russia’s isolation and growing lack of skilled producers have led to a stark decrease in technological production and innovation.

In January of this year, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) sent a letter to Matthew Wiener, Acting Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), and Todd Rubin, ACUS Counsel for Congressional Affairs, asking that the ACUS “conduct a study on whether Congress should create a unified, stand-alone, and independent Intellectual Property Office.” But Wiener replied to Tillis’ letter on March 7, indicating that ACUS “has neither the expertise nor resources to conduct” such a study. Instead, Wiener suggested asking an entity better positioned to undertake the task, such as the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), which Tillis wrote to today.

Blockchain technology has brought the world a collection of cutting-edge investment opportunities, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) among them. And with the advent of these unique digital assets, comes an entirely novel product segment subject to intellectual property law. For months now, the media has covered stories about NFTs selling for obscene prices. But behind these headlines—and given the onslaught of NFTs that continue to flood the market—are questions regarding trademark and copyright issues raised by these non-interchangeable units of data.

The struggles that most artists endure include creativity blocks and economic hardship; however, British artist Banksy seems unaffected by either of these. His street art is celebrated all over the world for its anti-authoritarian tone and his extremely secretive personal identity. Recently, he has even been venturing into Non-Fungible Tokens. But unwittingly, and rather humorously, Banksy is facing a different kind of dilemma in terms of either revealing his overtly confidential identity or losing exclusive rights to his works.

Charles Bertini, owner of the trademark APPLE JAZZ, has filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) Order suspending his Petition to Cancel Apple’s registration of the mark APPLE for entertainment services. Bertini also filed a motion in October of last year with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting that he be allowed to present evidence not of record to demonstrate that bias at the TTAB may have had a negative impact on his opposition against Apple, Inc.’s federal registration for “Apple Music”.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled earlier today that a stylized form of the trademark for the .SUCKS domain name failed to create a “separate commercial impression” warranting registration by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Vox Populi Registry Ltd. is the domain registry operator for the controversial .SUCKS generic top-level domain (gTLD). The USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in October 2020 affirmed an examiner’s decision to refuse the stylized mark, as well as the standard character word mark for .SUCKS.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York yesterday unsealed documents in an anticounterfeiting suit filed last year by Gilead Sciences, Inc. against a slew of defendants who Gilead alleges sold, marketed, and distributed counterfeits of its HIV medications. Gilead’s complaint seeks immediate monetary and injunctive relief, including seizure at certain of the defendants’ premises, as well as relief for trademark and trade dress infringement and trademark dilution, among other alleged violations…. According to the unsealed complaint and motion for relief, the accused companies sold “authentic-looking bottles of Gilead HIV and other medication to distributors and pharmacies throughout the United States, including in New York City, who in turn dispensed them to patients.”

On January 11, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision finding dilution by blurring and sustaining two oppositions filed by Spotify AB against two marijuana-related trademark applications. Applicant U.S. Software Inc. filed trademark applications for POTIFY in standard characters, and stylized with a design on July 17, 2017, and May 2, 2018, respectively. These applications sought to register POTIFY for: “downloadable software for use in searching, creating and making compilations, rankings, ratings, reviews, referrals and recommendations relating to medical marijuana dispensaries and doctor’s offices and displaying and sharing a user’s location and finding, locating, and interacting with other users and place, in International Class 9.”

The International Trademark Association (INTA) has made an amicus submission before the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) in a case concerning parallel imports and EU trademark law. (Case C-175/21 Harman International Industries, Inc. v. AB SA.) In the case at hand, Harman, which makes audiovisual equipment, brought trademark infringement proceedings in Poland against AB, a distributor. AB had put on the market goods featuring Harman’s trademarks, which it had obtained from a third party. Europe operates a system of regional exhaustion, as set out in Article 15(1) of the EUTM Regulation, and in parallel imports cases national courts have referred to “goods which have not been put on the market within the European Economic Area (EEA) by the right holder or with his consent.” (Gender-neutral language has not yet become established in EU jurisprudence). In this case, Harman argued that the goods had been imported into Poland and had not been put on the market within the EEA by Harman or with its consent. AB claimed it had received assurances when it bought the goods that the trademark rights were exhausted.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office today announced in an unpublished Federal Register Notice that it has established an administrative process for investigating submissions filed with the USPTO in trademark matters that appear to violate the Trademark Rules of Practice. The announcement comes as part of the USPTO’s broader effort to improve the integrity of the U.S. trademark register amid a surge in fraudulent filings, largely from China.

Last week, IPWatchdog selected five significant patent developments in Europe, examining what has happened this year and what can be expected in 2022. Here, we review five of the top trademark and copyright decisions and legislative changes across Europe and what’s coming up in the new year. One of the most significant trademark decisions of 2021 came in a case over Hasbro’s EUTM registration for MONOPOLY. The registration, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28 and 41, was declared invalid by the EUIPO Second Board of Appeal on the basis that Hasbro had acted in bad faith. On April 21, the EU General Court upheld that decision.

“Adjusting to the new normal” is a phrase that can be used to describe the United States’ and the world’s response to the events of 2021. Almost two years into the pandemic, it is clear that COVID-19 will be around for the near future, and we all have to adjust to it. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) certainly has adjusted, and business as usual is in full effect. Here’s a recap of some of the most significant developments at the USPTO in 2021.

The past year has seen the implementation of brand-new trademark legislation, significant analysis of trademark liability for new technologies, renewed focus on the doctrine of initial interest confusion, the transformation of Nikes into “Satan Shoes,” the functionality of chocolate dipped cookies, and the end to a long-running case involving two multi-million dollar jury awards for willful infringement. As 2021 comes to an end, we look forward to what 2022 has in store.

On Friday, December 10, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a “Show Cause Order” imposing sanctions against Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd. and its Executive Director, Yusha Zhang, for violations of the USPTO’s trademark rules of practice relating to improper trademark submissions. The 198-page Order, comprised mostly of an exhibit listing all of the company’s trademark filings, indicates that the Respondents named in the Order “have filed more than 15,000 trademark matters before the USPTO” and “engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, provided false domicile information for applicants, impermissibly entered the signature of the named signatory on declarations and verifications, and violated other USPTO Rules and the USPTO’s website terms of use.”