• Posts Tagged ‘license back’

    The Things You Don’t Think Of

    by  • February 18, 2019 • trademark • 0 Comments

    We have a story of three firearm and ammunition companies. The parties in the case are DoubleTap Defense, LLC (DTD), a company that had an application to register the trademark DOUBLETAP for pistols, and Hornady Manufacturing Co., owner of several TAP-formative registrations for ammunition. The third company, not a party, is Double Tap Ammunition...

    Read more →

    A Service Mark Is Not Always a Trademark

    by  • December 26, 2018 • trademark • 0 Comments

    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns the site on which the World Trade Center in New York sits. The original two towers complex was completed in 1973 and included the “Top of the World” observation deck and gift shops, which were operated under a lease with the Port Authority. As...

    Read more →

    What the Paperwork Says

    by  • March 7, 2016 • trademark • 5 Comments

    Here’s an utterly confusing situation, which I suppose is why there has been an arbitration, two lawsuits, and an appeal to the 9th Circuit with an unpublished decision. People, get the paperwork right. The situation involves Camelot Hair Care Products LLC, a woman named Nina Parkinson, and Robanda International Inc. A person named Tony...

    Read more →

    Lack of Control as a Shield

    by  • September 23, 2012 • trademark • 0 Comments

    You are undoubtedly familiar with the concept that the lack of control over the quality of the goods and services with which a mark is used can mean that the trademark is abandoned (recursive link alert) by the trademark owner.  But in East West, LLC v. Rahman, the lack of control was instead used...

    Read more →

    A Good Tacking Decision

    by  • March 30, 2011 • trademark

    Boathouse Group, Inc. v. TigerLogic Corp. is a priority dispute between two trademarks for software used to enhance the functionality of social media sites. The plaintiff’s mark was POSTPOST, located at postpo.st, and the defendant’s was POSTPOST, located at postpost.com.  Given the identicality of the marks, the only question was whether the services were...

    Read more →