Podcasts about appeal board ttab

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is an administrative court at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Erik explains what the TTAB is, the types of cases it handles, and how it functions in this podcast. Listen to Podcast The post What Is the TTAB? appeared first on Erik M Pelton & Associates, PLLC.

An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) can be an important tool when appropriate and when there is a strong reason to believe that perhaps the examiner's decision can be overturned. In this episode we cover some … Continue reading → Listen to Podcast The post Anatomy of An Appeal to the TTAB appeared first on Erik M Pelton & Associates, PLLC.

Michele Katz, the founder of the intellectual property law firm Advitam IP, LLC, has provided powerful expertise in client counseling, strategic analysis, licensing, prosecution and litigation in all areas of intellectual property (IP) law for 20+ years. Her diverse skill set and drive to deliver results applies equally to obtaining trademark and copyright registrations and issued patents, as it does in obtaining favorable outcomes in state and federal court and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), US Customs, and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a certified mediator, Michele has also brought parties to creative solutions for their disputes. Learn More: www.advitamip.com https://plusoneadoption.org/

Michele Katz, the founder of the intellectual property law firm Advitam IP, LLC, has provided powerful expertise in client counseling, strategic analysis, licensing, prosecution and litigation in all areas of intellectual property (IP) law for 20+ years. Her diverse skill set and drive to deliver results applies equally to obtaining trademark and copyright registrations and issued patents, as it does in obtaining favorable outcomes in state and federal court and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), US Customs, and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a certified mediator, Michele has also brought parties to creative solutions for their disputes. Learn More: www.advitamip.com

John Welch is a trademark and copyright counsel at Wolf Greenfield. He has represented clients in scores of patent, trademark, copyright lawsuits across the country. John specializes in cases before  the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), and speaks and writes frequently regarding that tribunal. His blog, The TTABlog, is highly popular with the trademark community. In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, John Welch provides a summary of the Board, takes a look at interesting trends and cases and offers a review of the recently enacted Trademark Modernization Act. Here are some of the highlights: 00:49 - An overview of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)02:22 - Why do parties go to the TTAB instead of federal court?03:59 - Explaining the high affirmance rate for likelihood-of-confusion and mere descriptiveness cases04:55 - TTAB trends in 202106:19 - Why has there been an increase in failure to function cases?07:15 - Interesting cases on the horizon09:32 - Notable elements of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (“TMA”)12:39 - John's popular TTABlog - keeping tabs on the TTAB since 2004   

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has decided that a proposed mark incorporating the name “Trump” may not be federally registered as a trademark. Relying on the Lanham Act  that doesn't allow registration of any mark that identifies “a particular living individual” without that person’s consent, the TTAB refused to register “Trump Too Small” for use on T-shirts and other apparel.

Verna Law, P.C. currently has cases in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Central District of California, and the Western District of Washington. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board appears to be running normally, except that the TTAB's building itself is closed. The United States Patent and Trademark Office's building is closed. But the USPTO is still running, accepting applications, and the TTAB general case calendars are unaffected. Oral arguments will be heard via other means. Until further notice, examiner and examining attorney interviews, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) oral hearings, and other similar in-person meetings with parties and stakeholders scheduled to take place at USPTO offices on or after Friday, March 13, 2020 will be conducted remotely by video or telephone. Parties will receive further instructions on how to participate by video or telephone in advance of the interview, hearing, or meeting. The Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, Central District of California, and District of New Jersey courthouses are open to all except those who have visited China, Italy, Iran, South Korea, and Japan but all judges have ordered their clerks to work from home. Some judges allow conference calls for discovery matters, but dispositive, substantive hearings on motions will most likely be delayed. Deadlines for drafting motions and responses will not be delayed as the filing systems are electronic. The Western District of Washington has closed. However, all courts have said that motions that can be decided without an oral argument will be decided. Every judge will handle the situation differently, though. Here is a lightly edited transcript of the video blog: I've been asked how the novel coronavirus has affected the intellectual property system in the United States. And, apart from the fact that I haven't shaved since Saturday, the answer is it really hasn't affected the system all that much. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, all are operated under the same federal agency and they've had systems in place for years for remote work. That means every time I call a trademark examining attorney or a patent examining attorney to ask what's wrong with an application, I'm calling them at home. Most employees are at home already. Fighting budget woes, the Patent and Trademark Office has already had this system in place. With electronic filing and work from home, the Patent and Trademark Office is operating almost normally. So, what about the courts? Well, federal courts are generally, closed or the judges themselves are not holding hearings in the courthouse. But, for many of my cases, if there's a substantive hearing, we're rescheduling it for some kind of telephone conference and, therefore, it can be recorded by the court. Frankly, the electronic filing system for the court, for the federal courts is still in operation. So, deadlines really haven't changed. Yes, if there's a trial, your trial is going to be held until a later date. If there's a substantive motion that can only be heard in court that's going to be held until a later date. But, apart from that, the Patent and Trademark Office is running. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are all running. We can file intellectual property without a problem. And, for the most part, the administrative courts as well are running without an issue. I'm Anthony Verna, managing partner Verna Law, P.C., were we focus on intellectual property: patents, trademarks, and copyrights. And we'll talk to you next time. Thank you.

Hi Anthony Verna here. Let's talk a little bit about a decision that came from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on October 31st. First, it reminded me of a case a few years ago that I had in which I made my appearance in the case and opposing counsel, about two weeks, later filed a motion for sanctions. Why did opposing counsel want to sanction me when I was only involved in the case for two weeks? Well, my client was really not forthcoming in giving his dates for his trial testimony. Now, my client being the plaintiff really did need to state his case at some at some point. Opposing counsel did call him for his testimony and since he was foreign he really was reluctant. However, since I had only been in the case for two weeks, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) said that no appropriate type of sanction in this trademark dispute was really going to be appropriate. So no sanctions were needed. Also, at some point, we did give a date for my client's testimony and we worked it out. Now, this case on October 31st came from the makers of Tito's Vodka that's called Fifth Generation and they were filing to cancel trademarks from a company called Titomirov Vodka LLC. Now, Titomirov Vodka LLC and Tito's Vodka have had disputes since 2016.  One of the issues was that a Titomirov had said that the only board member that could be in the United States really isn't in the United States and therefore could not provide any particular testimony as to the cases. After a filing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) found that this particular company might have been lying about that. And that's been a part of the reason for the sanctions. What were the sanctions? All of Titomirov Vodka LLC's trademarks were canceled by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and therefore no trademarks are registered here in the United States by this particular company anymore. It was fraudulent filings. It was repeated violation of court orders. It was repeated inability to put witnesses up for testimony. That is is a big reminder when there are disputes in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). It is a federal court of law. It might be an administrative court, but it is a federal court of law and discovery requests are court orders, as subpoenas or court orders, any kind of testimony, is done under penalty of perjury. It's a federal court of law and that's the key with this particular case. And that court does have the power to put harsh sanctions for business, practicality and canceling all while that is a very hard sanction does come into play. So remember, if your trademark is in dispute and you're in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), you'll want to take that case as seriously as if it were a trademark infringement case in any federal district court. I'm Anthony Verna, managing partner of Verna Law where we focus on IP and advertising law. See you next time. Thank you.

AIPLA Podcast Network's Mike Cushman is joined by Ted Davis, partner at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, to discuss the Iancu v. Brunetti case. The US Supreme Court, on April 15, heard arguments over whether it should permit the registration of “scandalous” or profane trademarks, a move which critics say would be unconstitutional. The case is an appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which in 2017 overturned a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and approved registration for the ‘Fuct’ mark.The USPTO refused registration for the mark on the grounds that it was immoral or scandalous under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. This provision, also known as the disparagement clause, prohibits registration of trademarks covering “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter”. The Supreme Court will now rule on whether this clause is in breach of the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech.Support the show (http://www.aipla.org)

Where are these hearings held? Who can request one and when? How much do they cost? How much time does each side get to present? This important podcast answers these questions and more. Listen to Podcast The post What to expect at a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) hearing? appeared first on Erik M Pelton & Associates, PLLC.

In an opinion that came down today, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) that refused registration of the mark “DETROIT ATHLETIC CO.“ because of likely confusion with the mark “DETROIT ATHLETIC CLUB.”

Tyler Marandola is a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation Group. He prosecutes and defends cases involving patents, copyrights, trademarks, licensing, unfair competition, and other commercial disputes. Tyler has experience in the areas of pharmaceutical and medical device patent litigation, as well as experience in transactional work and patent counseling and licensing, including within the biotech, mechanical, and telecommunication fields.Tyler's recent experience includes defending clients against allegations of infringement under software-related patents, as well as litigating patent claims relating to medical treatments and genetic sequencing. In addition, he has litigated copyright and trademark cases in various jurisdictions and has experience in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).Co-Author, GDPR And The Future of WHOIs Data, National Law Review (April 3, 2018).

Former Online Editor Anthony Zangrillo and Former Senior Notes and Articles Editor Joey Gerber take a break from BAR prep in order to discuss "one of the most important First Amendment free speech cases to come along in many years" Matal v. Tam.1 In the past, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has refused to register trademarks considered that disparage a particular person, group or institution. On June 19, the Supreme Court unanimously held (8-0) that the disparagement clause (Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act), is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The specific case in controversy involved a Portland, Oregon, rock band “The Slants.” All the members of the band are of Asian decent and the name represents a move of empowerment in reclaiming a historically derogatory term. Simon Tam filed a trademark application to federally register the band’s name, “The Slants.” The PTO refused to register the mark as “derogatory or offensive” based on the dictionary meaning of ‘slants’ or ‘slant-eyes.’ Tam lost an appeal to the PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), but this ruling was reversed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the disparagement clause is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause. On this podcast, Anthony and Joey discuss the Supreme Court decision and the ramifications this could have on future trademark applications, as well as other decisions such as the recent controversy over the Washington Redskins.2   Don’t forget to also subscribe to the podcast on iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/fordham-intellectual-property/id1158550285?mt=2) and leave a review!

Are brands allowed an opinion in the modern media landscape? In the news recently, Under Armour CEO has been in the crosshairs over his comments that alluded to President Trump being "good for business." However, did the media tell the entire story? And more to the point, are brands allowed to have an opinion, or must they be responsible to their shareholders in a way that creates no waves? Joining hosts Robert Hix and Vincenzo Landino are Savannah Peterson with Savvy Millennial and Antigone Peyton at Cloudigy Law. About Savannah Peterson Savannah Peterson is the Founder and Chief Unicorn of Savvy Millennial where she helps the people, products and brands she loves grow. Savannah was named to the 2016 Forbes 30 Under 30 list in Consumer Technology, and is a respected voice in innovation and community engagement. Savannah works with authors, startups and companies, developing go-to-market strategies and building communities. She thrives on product development and launch journey and is a super-connector of people, resources and audiences. Prior to Savvy Millennial, Savannah was the Director of Innovation Strategy at Massive Labs & Speck Design where she helped create new consumer electronics. In her New York City life, Savannah was the Director of Global Community at Shapeways, the world's largest 3D Printing community, where she empowered and enabled over 25,000 3D Printing businesses. A true hardware nerd, Savannah has helped friends, clients, and fellow creatives raise over $4.5M through crowdfunding. Before diving head first into design, Savannah worked at Fox Sports Northwest, the Center for Communication and Civic Engagement at the University of Washington, and founded her own Social Media Marketing Agency, Savvy Marketing Seattle. She travels the world as a public speaker, most recently featured at the Air New Zealand Inspiring Voices series, Kiwi Landing Pad Sales and Marketing Jam, South by Southwest, the Silicon Beached Festival, the Ford Research and Innovation Lab, Gasparilla Interactive, Social Fresh and more. An avid mentor for women and men in tech, she mentors and teaches at Stanford, NYU, and PACE University. She has been featured in/on Forbes, the BBC, NBC, The Wall Street Journal, Gizmodo, CNET, The Verge, and others. When not geeking out, she’s tasting wine and romping through the wild blue yonder with her rescue mutt, Martini. Savannah thrives on empowering innovative minds. This takes shape in many forms; keynote speaking, panel moderating, teaching, mentoring, livestreaming, vlogging, podcasting, hosting and any other excuse to have fun in front of a creative audience. About Antigone Peyton Antigone focuses on intellectual property litigation and IP portfolio management and growth strategies involving patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights. Her litigation and counseling experiences also include unfair competition, DMCA violations, computer fraud, and social media issues. Antigone has acted as lead trial counsel and appellate counsel in federal civil lawsuits across the United States and has a significant litigation practice in the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Rocket Docket”). Additionally, Antigone has represented clients before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Antigone has been recognized among Virginia Super Lawyers and Virginia Legal Elite for her work involving intellectual property law. She has also been honored with an Influential Women of Virginia award for ou