One of the interesting things about TTAB proceedings is that there is no live testimony before the people who will decide the case, the judges. That’s generally a good thing; it means the proceeding is less expensive and time-consuming. Trial testimony is done like a deposition, with just the parties and a court reporter,...
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 →I was all stoked because one of the most complicated trademark ownership cases I’ve ever seen, C.F.M. Distributing Co. v. Costantine, was appealed to the Federal Circuit. Super! Clarification from a Court of Appeals on trademark ownership! Sigh. Affirmed under Rule 36 without an opinion. Oral argument here. The text of this work is...
Read more →I often write about cases where there are two claimants to the same trademark. We’re still struggling with the fundamental doctrine that should apply in the situation, and because we’re struggling it means that the litigants may not capture or offer evidence that the fact finder needs in order to decide. Which is what...
Read more →Well, here’s a teaser of a case we might never know more about. The mark INTRAV has been registered since 1968 for travel agency services and is now owned by International Expeditions, Inc. A company called Christine E, LLC filed a petition to cancel the mark on the basis of abandonment: After diligent inquiry,...
Read more →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...
Read more →A short primer from the TTAB on when one can correct the name of an incorrectly named registrant and when instead the application is void ab initio. In Key West Innkeeper’s Association, Inc. v. The Popular House, Inc., the application was filed in the name of “Carlson,Jody,E”, a corporation, then the applicant was changed...
Read more →Here’s a TTAB case that I think presents an interesting procedural question. The situation: Bello Fitness Ltda, petitioner, is a Brazilian clothing manufacturer. It owns the BODY UP mark in Brazil and had a relationship with non-party Body Up, LLC to distribute the BODY UP clothing in the U.S. Fernando Homem da Costa Filho...
Read more →The caption tells it all: 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, Inc. v. 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care. As explained by the TTAB: Opposers’ pleadings herein contain three grounds for refusing applicant registration: (1) priority and likelihood of confusion; (2) likelihood of dilution; and (3) that applicant is not the rightful...
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013-2022 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.