I just ran across this older opinion upon seeing a more recent opinion in the case on attorneys’ fees. The situation was interesting enough to make me go back and find the earlier decision. Defendant Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo “Spartak” is a Belarusian company specializing in the production of chocolate. Spartak entered into a non-exclusive...
Read more →Oneida Group, Inc. v. Steelite International U.S.A. Inc. is a demonstration of how our jurisprudence is essentially useless in deciding trademark ownership claims. The dispute is over ownership of the trade dress in the highly successful “Botticelli” and “Nexus” tableware patterns, part of Oneida’s “Sant’ Andrea” line: The tableware is considered premier and sold...
Read more →By now you should have read John Welch‘s excellent report on the Federal Circuit opinion in Lyons v. The American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation; you can also find more background from me on the Board decision here. Despite my fondness for ownership cases, I wish this wasn’t one, or at least...
Read more →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 →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 →Trademark ownership isn’t susceptible to an easy rubric. In The American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation v. Lyons, it might have appeared to the registrant, Lyons, that the facts were in her favor based on traditional elements considered when deciding ownership. But, looking at the big picture, the TTAB found otherwise. In...
Read more →I just went on a tirade against the manufacturer-distributor presumption, arguing that the doctrine is meant to apply where “distributor” means “reseller,” not the more complicated case where the so-called “distributor” has some say in how the goods are produced. And here is an example of the relationship the doctrine was meant for—properly applied...
Read more →John Welch at The TTABlog summarizes a case that is characterized as a manufacturer-distributor dispute over the ownership of the mark “UVF861” for UV light bulbs. John does a thorough job summarizing the case, which I won’t repeat here. In its opinion, the TTAB applied the presumption that in a manufacturer-distributor relationship, the manufacturer...
Read more →Legal doctrine has developed a manufacturer-distributor paradigm, but that is too simplistic in today’s commercial world. What we have in ACRO Biosystems v. Acrobiosystems USA LLC, an opposition, is manufacturer versus branch office. The opposer is a Chinese manufacturer of biochemical reagents sold in the US under the mark ACROBIOSYSTEMS. The applicants are a...
Read more →While I write about all the intellectual property disciplines, I have a soft spot for trademark ownership disputes. And I was, frankly, surprised by today’s case—it was not the outcome I expected when I first started reading. Tammy Goldthorpe filed an application for the mark SLIPPERY WIZARD for asphalt release agent. The application was...
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013-2022 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.