News & Analysis as of

Lanham Act Reversal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

BakerHostetler

Federal Circuit Reverses TTAB Decision Based on Dissimilar House Marks

BakerHostetler on

On June 13, the Federal Circuit reversed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board) nonprecedential decision finding no likelihood of confusion between opposer Château Lynch-Bages’ and applicant Château Angélus...more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

Supreme Court Holds Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks Unconstitutional

On June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court, in Iancu v. Brunetti, reviewing the trademark application for “FUCT”, held that the Lanham’s Act’s provision, prohibiting the registration of “immoral[] or scandalous”...more

ArentFox Schiff

Supreme Court Rules Ban on ‘Immoral or Scandalous’ Trademarks Unconstitutional

ArentFox Schiff on

On Monday, the Supreme Court held that the ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Court found that, as with the recently struck down ban on “disparaging” marks, the ban...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

SCOTUS on Swearing: Lanham Act Violates First Amendment by Prohibiting Registration of Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks

Ballard Spahr LLP on

The Supreme Court unanimously held on June 24, 2019, that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering “immoral” trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) infringes upon the First Amendment because such a...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

US Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban of ‘Scandalous’ Trademarks

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision in Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act’s ban on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

This was a busy week for precedential cases at the Circuit. In AIA v. Avid, the Circuit rules that there is no right to a jury trial as to requests for attorney fees under § 285. In Romag v. Fossil, a majority rules that the...more

McAfee & Taft

Free speech legal battle changes law on disparaging trademarks

McAfee & Taft on

Last month, in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision that struck down a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act....more

Knobbe Martens

More Than Zero: Under the Lanham Act, One Interstate Sale Qualifies as Actual Use of a Trademark in Commerce

Knobbe Martens on

In 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected shoe manufacturer Adidas’s application to trademark the phrase “ADIZERO,” due to a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark: “ADD A ZERO,” a clothing trademark held...more

Knobbe Martens

Trademark Review | August 2015

Knobbe Martens on

The Redskins Lose Again (Off the Field)- A federal District Court affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) ruling that “Redskins” cannot be registered as a trademark for use in connection with a...more

9 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide