• The Successful Gambit

    by  • May 22, 2017 • 0 Comments

    There’s nothing like a good procedural end run. Some people think it’s not sporting, but they are often very efficient. In re Hansen is a bankruptcy case with a history. Karl Hansen owned some US and foreign patents that he licensed to PixArt Imaging Inc. in 2008. Karl and Lisa Hansen filed for Chapter...

    Read more →

    What Is the Goal?

    by  • May 15, 2017 • 0 Comments

    Super Sabre Society v. Frazier is an opposition to the registration of a logo, filed in both black and white and color, for association services: Applicant Frazier had been a founder, the first CEO and a board member of the Super Sabre Society, an organization for those who flew the F-100 Super Sabre. No...

    Read more →

    Third Circuit Adopts the Standard Test

    by  • April 24, 2017 • 0 Comments

    The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, took an opportunity to clarify the doctrine to be used when deciding, as between a manufacturer and distributor, who owns the trademark. The decision is a wee bit puzzling only because it makes much of what didn’t look like much at the trial court level. The...

    Read more →

    Getting Back on the Rails

    by  • April 17, 2017 • 0 Comments

    I have written extensively in the past about what I consider a misapplication of the anti-trafficking provision of Section 10 of the Lanham Act. Section 10 has a special provision that limits when one can assign an intent-to-use trademark application. After the 1989 amendment to the Lanham Act, companies could file trademark applications before...

    Read more →

    “Incontestability” and Cancellation

    by  • February 13, 2017 • 2 Comments

    I previously reported on a case that managed to find a non-statutory basis for cancelling an “incontestable” trademark registration, specifically that the application for the registration was void ab initio. The plaintiff and trademark owner was NetJets, with a registered trademark for a software program INTELLIJET. The defendant was a company named Intellijet Group....

    Read more →

    What It Takes to Get Attorneys’ Fees

    by  • January 30, 2017 • 0 Comments

    This is a bit of a “duh” case from the Federal Circuit, a nonprecedential decision. The only surprising part of it is that the trial court, Judge Sparks in the Western District of Texas, didn’t impose even greater sanctions. It was quite a show of generosity. The patent-in-suit has a short chain of title;...

    Read more →

    Be Careful What You Wish For

    by  • January 23, 2017 • 0 Comments

    To “plead yourself out of court” is to state facts in a complaint that mean you have already lost. Something like, in a personal injury case, saying “I rear-ended him because he stopped at a red light” would do it. In Reynolds v. Banks it’s not quite exactly that, but pretty darn close. Sandra...

    Read more →

    The Family Name

    by  • January 16, 2017 • 0 Comments

    This case is not just a trademark suit with a domestic relations background; it is a domestic relations dispute over the ownership of marital property, which happens to be a trademark. It is a marital settlement that makes any trademark attorney’s heart sink. While they were married, exes Randy Zweifel and Linda Smith held...

    Read more →

    Who Do You Associate “BorderFest” With?

    by  • January 9, 2017 • 0 Comments

    There’s an interesting trademark ownership fact pattern as described by a Texas state appeals court in Vera v. City of Hidalgo. I find it interesting in two ways. First, there is no mention of the statutory or common law basis for the claim. It’s characterized as ownership of a cultural festival name, but the...

    Read more →

    There Is Just No Way Around the Absent Patent Owner

    by  • January 3, 2017 • 1 Comment

    I’m writing about an inventorship case mostly because I have to bone up before I speak at the AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute in a talk rivetingly titled “The Backlash from Mismanagement of Inventorship in Multi-Party Deals.” If you’re attending, consider Speedfit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc. your homework assignment. The plaintiffs are an inventor, Aurel...

    Read more →

    What’s a “Trolley Pub,” You Ask?

    by  • December 19, 2016 • 0 Comments

    I’m SO glad you did, because I can tell you all about the Trolley Pub® transport services – note the care with which I’ve used the term as a trademark, although I will dispense with any effort to use it in adjective-noun form from now on. The Trolley Pub is a pedal-powered street trolley...

    Read more →

    I Think I Heard the Phone Ringing …

    by  • December 15, 2016 • 0 Comments

    John Welch put in the call, and I’ll pick up. If you didn’t read his post on Emerald Cities Collaborative, Inc v. Roese, go read it now. Section 10 of the Lanham Act limits the assignability of intent-to-use trademark applications. One can assign an ITU application only after the Amendment to Allege Use or...

    Read more →