Property, intangible

This is a bit of a “duh” case from the Federal Circuit, a nonprecedential decision.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; from… Continue reading

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 Banks… Continue reading

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 equal… Continue reading

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 court… Continue reading

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 Astilean,… Continue reading

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 for… Continue reading

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 the… Continue reading

I am pleased to be speaking in San Francisco next week, December 21, at the Practicing Law Institute’s CLE on open source software “From Compliance to Cooperation.” Shane Curcuru, Vice President for the Apache Foundation, and I will be talking about trademarks in open source software. You can attend live at the PLI center in… Continue reading

A trademark ownership dispute generally means taking a very mushy set of facts and deciding who has the superior claim. Generally, avoiding likelihood of confusion is the paramount interest, so the outcome will mean that one party will have to cease its use. But sometimes courts allow what I call “tolerated infringement,” concurrent uses that… Continue reading

One of my most read posts is “What Nunc Pro Tunc Means.” It means “now for then” in Latin, which is hardly much help. Extensive Google research tells me that it’s used to correct judicial orders, but that’s not what brings readers to my blog. In the IP field we typically use “nunc pro tunc”… Continue reading