assignment
-
Yeah, What He Said
If you think that there is any way around the prohibition in Section 10 of the Lanham Act restricting the assignment of intent-to-use applications,* just give up on the idea. The registrant in Central Garden & Pet Co. v. Deskocil Manufacturing Co., having assigned intent-to-use applications from a wholly-owned grandchild subsidiary up to the parent,… Continue reading
-
The Court of Appeals Confirms “Registrant” Means What It Says
I’ve already written a couple of times about Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport v. SPI Spirits Ltd. The plaintiff in the case, FTE, manages the STOLICHNAYA trademark on behalf of the Russian government. The first time the case went to the Court of Appeals, the appeals court reversed the trial court and held that the incontestability… Continue reading
-
It’s Hard to Be a Copyright Troll
I previously reported on a pending case, Contra Piracy v. Does 1-2919, where the court very quickly raised the issue of standing – sua sponte, because it’s still a John Doe case. The savvy court suspected something was up and put the plaintiff to its proof. Owning the bare right to sue isn’t enough for… Continue reading
-
A Patent Owner Who Doesn’t Own the Patent
I’ve often written about the various categories of potential plaintiffs in patent infringement suits. Depending on what rights a licensee acquired, it may or may not have constitutional standing to bring a patent infringement lawsuit. A new case, CopyTele, Inc. v. E Ink Holdings, Inc., comes at it from a somewhat different angle — here,… Continue reading
-
You Need to Ask Who Is Making the Product
Nahshin v. Product Source International, LLC is a fairly routine manufacturer-distributor dispute with a twist — a middleman. It could have mucked things up a bit, but the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board handled it neatly. Israeli businessman and petitioner Leonid Nahshin adopted the mark NIC-OUT at least as early as January 1, 2002 outside… Continue reading
-
The Bankruptcy Court Still Has to Approve It
Here’s a bankruptcy practice tip—you can’t just go signing documents when your company is in bankruptcy. Defendant Deep claimed to own the copyright in the “Aimster” software of yore. He accused plaintiff XAC, LLC, a subsidiary of Xerox, of copyright infringement. Deep had three different theories for why he owned the copyright in the software,… Continue reading
-
A Very Liberal Interpretation of “Registrant”
Apparently in the Northern District of California, an exclusive licensee can successfully sue under Section 32 of the Lanham Act even though it doesn’t claim to be either owner or registrant. Continue reading
-
Patent Ownership Not a Federal Question (at least in this case)
Is patent ownership a question of federal law? It depends. In the case of Millepede Marketing Ltd. v. Harsley, it’s not. The recent Supreme Court decision Gunn v. Minton* provides the analytical framework: a matter is one for federal jurisdiction if (a) federal law creates the cause of action asserted or (b) a federal issue… Continue reading
-
I Have Never Seen An Ownership Case So Complicated
I’ve read a lot of cases with convoluted fact patterns, which I guess is how they end up in litigation. But C.F.M. Dist. Co. v. Costantine, an opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, is in the stratosphere of convoluted. Not surprisingly, it’s about a family business. In a 44-page decision, 4 pages are… Continue reading
-
Sixth Circuit Saves the Day
A while back I started a post this way: What a mess. Add up ugly facts and a court that bought a frivolous and completely wrong argument (made without citation – because there aren’t any) and you end up with a fiasco. Here’s to appeals. And the appeal is here. Muuuchhh better! Defendant Steven Brandeberry… Continue reading
About Me
Learn more about me at my website, Chestek Legal
Recent Posts
Categories
- copyright
- domain name
- moral rights
- patent
- right of publicity
- social media
- trade dress
- trade libel
- trade secret
- trademark
- Uncategorized