July 2015 USPTO TMEP Update July 2015 TBMP Update July 2015 Final rule relating to Changes in Requirements for Collective and Certification Marks Effective June 1 2015 the daily limit per credit card account was lowered to 2499999 ID: 723163
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Trademark and Copyright Updates" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Trademark and Copyright Updates
July
2015Slide2
USPTOTMEP Update July 2015TBMP Update July 2015Final rule relating to Changes in Requirements for Collective and Certification
MarksEffective June 1, 2015, the daily limit per credit card account was lowered to $24,999.99. New Exam Guide on Repeating Pattern MarksSlide3
Local Copyright PlaintiffRichard Bell has sued 100’s of people for © infringement for photo of IndyGenerally demands ~$3,000
Sued someone who hadn’t used photo – J. Pratt ordered fees to defendant of $34,000:“The Court is persuaded by Mr. Lantz’s argument that the motivation of Mr. Bell in filing this action appears to be an attempt to extract quick, small settlements from many defendants instead of using the judicial process to protect his copyright against legitimate infringing actors,” Slide4
Distributor Owns TM, not MFGpresumption that, between a mfg. and an exclusive distributor,
the mfg owns mark, but rebuttable: (1) which party created and first affixed the mark to the
product; (2) which party's name appeared with the trademark on packaging and promotional materials; (3) which party maintained the quality and uniformity of the product, including technological changes;
(
4) which party does the consuming public believe
stands
behind the product,
e.g.
, to whom customers
direct
complaints and turn to for correction of defective products;
(
5) which party paid for advertising; and
(
6) what a party represents to others about the source or origin of the product.
UVeritech
, Inc. v. Amax Lighting, Inc.
, Cancellation No. 92057088 (June 29, 2015) [precedential]. Slide5
Don’t Count on VacatingIn 2013 TTAB issued a ruling dismissing opposition to HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIAAppealed to Dt. Ct.
Settled by assignmentConsent Judgement 1) allow to register and 2) for the TTAB to vacate decisionTTAB REFUSES TO VACATE
D.Ct. can adjudge registerability and can authorize “necessary actions”, but vacating not
necessary
– b/c of assignment, TTAB could allow registration without vacating decision
No finding that decision was wrong
The
Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama and Paul W. Bryant, Jr. v. William Pitts, Jr. and Christopher Blackburn
, Opposition No. 91187103 (June 23, 2015) [precedential]. Slide6
Where’s Waldo? (TRULICITY)Slide7
Where’s Waldo? (TRULICITY)EA refused specimen:the word TRULICITY is in the same size and style of font as the surrounding wording
is not "set out from the surrounding text." have to search even
to find the mark. TTAB Reversed: "a trademark ... need not be displayed in any particular size or degree of prominence." Question is, will it be understood as indicating the origin of the
goods
– yes, especially b/c coined term.
In
re Eli Lilly and Company
, Serial No. 85183667 (June 18, 2015) [not precedential].