Podcasts about trademark trial

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Vidal v Elster.      In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? The case was decided on June 13, 2024. Steve Elster sought to register the trademark "Trump too small" for use on shirts and hats, drawing from a 2016 Presidential primary debate exchange. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration based on the "names clause" of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of a mark that identifies a particular living individual without their written consent. Elster argued that this clause violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the PTO's decision, but the Federal Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Federal Circuit's decision, holding that the Lanham Act's names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court found that while the names clause is content-based, it is not viewpoint-based, as it does not discriminate against any particular viewpoint. The Court also noted that the names clause is grounded in a historical tradition of restricting the trademarking of names, which has coexisted with the First Amendment. The Court concluded that this history and tradition are sufficient to demonstrate that the names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court emphasized that its decision is narrow and does not set forth a comprehensive framework for judging whether all content-based but viewpoint-neutral trademark restrictions are constitutional. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Erik shares 25 key terms to know if you are involved in a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board matter in this episode. Listen to Podcast The post 25 TTAB Tips appeared first on Erik M Pelton & Associates, PLLC.

In this podcast episode, host Gary introduces Jamie Sternberg, a high-profile trademark attorney in Connecticut who is active on LinkedIn. They discuss Jamie's career path and her work in trademark law, including her decision to pursue law school after Metallica sued Napster for copyright infringement. Jamie shares her experience working in various law firms and emphasizes the importance of mentorship and building a professional network outside of the firm. One of the key topics Jamie and I discussed was the importance of mentorship and building a network for young attorneys. Jamie suggests finding a mentor within the same firm or a colleague who is a few years older to provide guidance and support. The value of having someone to talk to outside of the firm is immeasurable, providing a safe space to discuss challenges and seek advice. Jamie also emphasized the importance of building a network outside of the firm. This can lead to business opportunities and make job transitions easier. She shared her journey of building her network through her trade assoociation and attending conferences. She also highlighted the significance of having a personal brand as a lawyer. Clients often choose an attorney based on their personal relationship and reputation. Jamie advises younger attorneys to start building their brand early by being active on platforms like LinkedIn and getting involved in industry associations. Jamie provided valuable advice for lawyers looking to progress in their careers. She emphasized the importance of analyzing goals, taking action, and not procrastinating on steps that can lead to desired goals. Jamie Sternberg is based in Simsbury, Connecticut and is a Partner with the law firm Saunders & Silverstein LLP. She has passionately practiced in the field of trademark and copyright law for 18 years. Jamie has significant experience with strategic trademark and copyright protection, enforcement, defense, transactions, and litigation for businesses all over the United States and the world. On a daily basis you will find Jamie managing worldwide trademark, copyright, and domain name portfolios, providing strategic intellectual property (IP) advice, enforcing and defending client's IP rights, settling infringement disputes, negotiating IP agreements, or litigating before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and in court. Over the course of her career, Jamie has registered hundreds of trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, taken down thousands of infringing domain names, websites, and mobile apps, and resolved a high percentage of infringement disputes in her client's favor without resorting to litigation.   Clients regularly praise Jamie's accessibility and her ability to creatively solve problems. Jamie has been recognized as a top trademark attorney by World Trademark Review WTR 1000 (2022, 2023) and by the Super Lawyers organization for her IP practice in Connecticut (2022). Jamie has been an International Trademark Association (INTA) committee member since 2014 and currently serves on the Internet Committee. She is a co-author of the 2022 book Women in Law: Discovering the True Meaning of Success, and regularly speaks and writes on trademark and copyright issues.   You can connect with Jamie at jsternberg@sandsip.com, www.sandsip.com, and https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamieplatkinsternberg/.

On this day in history, September 1, 1807, Aaron Burr, former Vice President and notable shooter of Alexander Hamilton, was acquitted of treason. Aaron Burr's 1807 treason trial was a landmark case and one of the earliest tests of the U.S. Constitution's Treason Clause, outlined in Article III, Section 3. The clause was carefully crafted to limit the charge of treason to the most serious of crimes, requiring "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act" for a conviction. The trial featured key figures from the Constitutional Convention, including Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin, who were part of Burr's defense team. President Thomas Jefferson, who was convinced of Burr's guilt, directed the prosecution.Burr was arrested in Alabama after being rejected by both major political parties: the Democratic-Republicans for opposing Jefferson in the 1800 presidential election, and the Federalists for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. He had moved west to seek better fortunes and was involved in a plot to seize lands in Louisiana and Mexico. His plot was exposed when General James Wilkinson, a longtime friend, turned against him and informed federal authorities.Chief Justice John Marshall, a political adversary of Jefferson, presided over the trial. In an unprecedented move, Marshall issued a subpoena to President Jefferson to provide documents for Burr's defense, which Jefferson partially ignored. The trial hinged on whether Burr had committed an "overt act" of treason. Testimony revealed that Burr was 100 miles away from Blennerhassett's Island on the Ohio River, where the government claimed he was planning an act of treason. Marshall instructed the jury to focus solely on whether an act of war had been conducted on the island, citing an earlier related case, Ex parte Bollman.The jury quickly acquitted Burr, stating he was "not proved to be guilty under this indictment by any evidence submitted to us." Jefferson was so infuriated by the acquittal that he reportedly wanted to bring impeachment charges against Marshall, echoing a failed attempt in 1805 to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. Interestingly, Aaron Burr had presided over Chase's acquittal as Vice President. The trial revealed the complexities and limitations of the Treason Clause, and it also exposed the personal and political animosities between key figures of the era.U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas disclosed that Republican megadonor Harlan Crow funded his travel expenses for three trips last year. This is the first time in two decades that Thomas has reported travel funded by Crow, a Dallas real estate developer. The justice also revealed that he sold three properties to Crow in 2014, a transaction he had previously failed to disclose. These disclosures come after a series of ProPublica reports earlier this year that scrutinized Thomas's financial ties to Crow, including luxury vacations and real estate transactions.In a statement, Thomas's attorney Elliot Berke refuted the allegations, calling them a "partisan feeding frenzy" and stating that the attacks were motivated by disagreement with Thomas's judicial philosophy. Thomas also noted that he did not report earlier vacations with Crow due to new rules adopted by the federal judiciary this year. He added that he had arranged for private transportation to an event in May following an "increased security risk" related to a leaked draft opinion on Roe v. Wade.Thomas also corrected previous omissions in his financial disclosures, including bank accounts and a life insurance policy for his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas. He stated that Crow had paid $133,000 for the three properties in Savannah, Georgia, in 2014, resulting in a capital loss for him and his wife.The disclosure has heightened scrutiny around the ethics and transparency of the Supreme Court, especially as public confidence in the court has declined amid various controversies. Congressional Democrats and advocacy groups have filed ethics complaints against Thomas, but no action or updates have been announced by the Committee on Financial Disclosure, which oversees the reporting process for justices and lower court judges.Justice Clarence Thomas Reports Trips Paid for by GOP Donor (2)US Supreme Court's Thomas flew on GOP donor's jet, cites security risks | ReutersA federal judge has sentenced former Proud Boys leaders Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl to 17 and 15 years in prison, respectively, for their roles in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. They were convicted of seditious conspiracy in an attempt to overturn Donald Trump's 2020 election loss. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly's sentences were lower than the 33-year and 30-year terms that federal prosecutors had sought. Kelly stated that while he did not want to minimize the violence of the event, it was not equivalent to a mass casualty incident.Before their sentencing, both Biggs and Rehl expressed regret for their actions. Biggs choked up as he spoke about his daughter, who he said needs him, while Rehl broke down, stating that he had let politics consume his life. Prosecutors had partly based their sentencing recommendation for Rehl on evidence that he committed perjury during the trial.Judge Kelly agreed that the conduct of Biggs and Rehl amounted to an act of terrorism but did not apply a terrorism enhancement to the sentences, stating it "overstates the conduct" at issue. The sentences are among the most stringent handed down in relation to the Capitol attack. To date, more than 1,100 people have been arrested, over 630 have pleaded guilty, and at least 110 have been convicted at trial for charges related to the Capitol assault. The attack resulted in five deaths, including a police officer, and injuries to more than 140 police officers.Judge sentences ex-Proud Boys leaders to 17 and 15-year terms for US Capitol attack | ReutersApple and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have settled a lawsuit over the rejection of Apple's application for a federal trademark for the term "Smart Keyboard." The dispute was resolved in principle, according to a joint filing, although details of the settlement were not immediately available. Apple's Smart Keyboard serves as an iPad cover, keyboard, and stand. The USPTO initially rejected Apple's trademark application for the term in 2018, and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upheld the decision in 2021. The board found that "Smart Keyboard" was a generic term for "technologically advanced keyboards."Apple appealed the decision to a Virginia federal court last year, arguing that "Smart Keyboard" was a distinctive trade name for its accessory. The company also pointed out that the USPTO had approved hundreds of other "Smart" trademarks, including Apple's own "Smart Cover," "Smart Case," and "Smart Connector" marks for iPad accessories. In response, the USPTO reiterated its stance that "Smart Keyboard" is a generic term and therefore ineligible for a federal trademark.The case had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Representatives for both Apple and the USPTO did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the settlement. The resolution puts an end to a legal battle that had implications for trademark law and the tech industry.Apple, USPTO settle lawsuit over rejected 'Smart Keyboard' trademark | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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.

Terminology. Terms such as "mark", "brand" and "logo" are sometimes used interchangeably with "trademark". "Trademark", however, also includes any device, brand, label, name, signature, word, letter, numerical, shape of goods, packaging, color or combination of colors, smell, sound, movement or any combination thereof which is capable of distinguishing goods and services of one business from those of others. It must be capable of graphical representation and must be applied to goods or services for which it is registered. Specialized types of trademark include certification marks, collective trademarks and defensive trademarks. A trademark that is popularly used to describe a product or service (rather than to distinguish the product or services from those of third parties) is sometimes known as a genericized trademark. If such a mark becomes synonymous with that product or service to the extent that the trademark owner can no longer enforce its proprietary rights, the mark becomes generic. A "trademark look" is an informal term for a characteristic look for a performer or character of some sort. It is usually not legally trademark protected and the term is not used in the trademark law. Registration. Some law considers a trademark to be a form of property. Proprietary rights about a trademark may be established through actual use of that trademark in the marketplace or through registration of the mark with the relevant trademarks office (or "trademarks registry") of a particular jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, trademark rights can be established through either or both means. Certain jurisdictions generally do not recognize trademarks rights arising merely through use. If trademark owners do not hold registrations for their marks in such jurisdictions, the extent to which they will be able to enforce their rights through trademark infringement proceedings may be limited. In cases of dispute, this disparity of rights is often referred to as "first to file" (for example, register) as opposed to "first to use." Some countries, such as Germany, offer a limited number of common law rights for unregistered marks, where to gain protection the goods or services must first occupy a highly significant position in the marketplace — where this could be 40% or more market share for sales in the particular class of goods or services. In the United States, the registration process includes several steps. First, the trademark owner applies with the United States Patent and TradeMark Office to register the trademark. About three months after it is filed, the application is reviewed by an examining attorney at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The examining attorney checks for compliance with the rules of the Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure. This review includes procedural matters such as making sure the applicant's goods or services are identified properly. It also includes more substantive matters such as making sure the applicant's mark is not merely descriptive or likely to be confused with a pre-existing applied-for or registered mark. If the application runs afoul of any requirement, the examining attorney will issue an office action requiring the applicant to address certain issues or refusals before registration of the mark. If the examining attorney approves the application, it will be "published for opposition." During this 30-day period, third parties who may be affected by the registration of the trademark may step forward to file an opposition proceeding to stop the registration of the mark. If an opposition proceeding is filed it institutes a case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to determine both the validity of the grounds for the opposition as well as the ability of the applicant to register the mark at issue. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

In this episode of The Small Business Show,  Swire invites Nick Guinn to discuss the importance of protecting intellectual property in your business. Guinn, a seasoned intellectual property attorney, offers expert advice and practical tips for small business owners looking to safeguard their valuable assets. From trademarks and patents to trade secrets and copyrights, Guinn breaks down the different types of intellectual property and explains how to protect them from infringement. Tune in to this informative episode to learn how to secure your business's intellectual property and stay ahead of the competition.Bio and Information:Nick Guinn assists clients in all aspects of intellectual property, with an emphasis on trademarks and litigation, primarily infringement actions. Mr. Guinn also prosecutes patent and trademark applications and handles various trademark proceedings before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.Prior to Gunn, Lee & Cave, P.C., Nick served as a law clerk to Chief United States District Judge Fred Biery of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Through this experience, he developed tremendous insight into the procedures and considerations of the Court.He is a practicing professor of intellectual property law and advanced legal writing, and he frequently speaks on intellectual property and litigation issues.In addition to his practice, Nick immerses himself in the community. He enjoys volunteering with KLRN and Christian Assistance Ministries. He is an active member of his church—teaching Sunday school, coaching high school basketball, and corresponding with missionaries across the world.Contact for Nick Guinnhttps://www.nickguinn.com/https://www.gunn-lee.com/Attorneys/NickGuinn/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIV3U-pYiZDf9NqCvgG1zqAhttps://www.facebook.com/NickGuinnIPAttorney/https://www.instagram.com/nickguinnipattorney/The Small Business Show is the official podcast for Garuda Promo and Branding Solutions. For more information visit Website: http://www.garudapromo.com​​Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/garudapromo/​​Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/garudapromoTwitter: http://www.twitter.com/Garuda_Swire​Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/swire-ho-thepromoguy-6b9Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/garudapromo/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/Garudapromo88/videos #thesmallbusinessshow​​​ ​​​ #gaurdapromobranding​​ #smallbusinessmatters #smallbusinessstrong

Rajesh has over 15 years of intellectual property law experience. He has subject matter expertise in developing and managing domestic and international patent portfolios for Fortune 500 companies and start-up ventures. His current legal practice touches on all areas of intellectual property law. He assists clients develop their trademark filing strategy, settle trademark disputes and enter into coexistence agreements. He also handles proceedings at the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, the Copyright Office Review Board and represents parties in web domain disputes under the U.D.R.P. He also advises clients with regard to I.P. rights in literary works, film and music production. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rfotedar Cognition IP: https://cognitionip.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/

Rajesh has over 15 years of intellectual property law experience. He has subject matter expertise in developing and managing domestic and international patent portfolios for Fortune 500 companies and start-up ventures. His current legal practice touches on all areas of intellectual property law. He assists clients develop their trademark filing strategy, settle trademark disputes and enter into coexistence agreements. He also handles proceedings at the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, the Copyright Office Review Board and represents parties in web domain disputes under the U.D.R.P. He also advises clients with regard to I.P. rights in literary works, film and music production. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rfotedar Cognition IP: https://cognitionip.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/

For trademark owners, increasing brand recognition can sometimes be a mixed blessing. Well-known marks can start to be more than just strong source identifiers. They can be the targets of parody, criticism, social commentary, and other uses that go beyond the consumer goodwill attached to a mark. Concerns about free expression and free speech start to enter the equation. Featured guest Janet Marvel helps unpack the interplay between recognizing trademark rights while protecting expression that falls within the purview of the First Amendment. She's a talented and experienced trademark practitioner, instructor, and author. We are fortunate to have her share her knowledge and insights on this area of trademark law.In this episode, Jeff Harty and Janet Marvel discuss: Brand essence and the power of brands. Developing a good brand strategy.Counterfeiting and e-commerce. The balance between free speech and trademark protection. Key Takeaways: Trademarks provide valuable functions for both consumers and sellers of goods and services. You have to think about a global stage for your major business operations and trademark strategy, not just your local country. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court has gone from artistic work to expressive work in its interpretation of the Rogers case. It is possible that they have expanded their view of First Amendment protection too far. We look forward to the Supreme Court soon providing guidance in the Jack Daniels case. “Protecting your trademarks, in that respect of thinking about stopping counterfeiters, is important. You can't stop a counterfeiter under the federal statute without a registration. So you want to have a registration, and you want to think about where you're manufacturing.” —Janet Marvel   About Janet Marvel: Pattishall partner Janet Marvel protects brands, copyrighted works, and domain names throughout the world. She has been charged with protecting the trademarks of world-famous brands, such as Ford, Pepsi, Harlequin (romance novels), and Mattel. She even protects the famous Cheesehead hat on view during the NFL season when the Green Bay Packers play.As part of her practice, Janet represents plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of disputes involving trademark, copyright, rights of publicity, breach of contract, unfair competition, and false advertising. She has successfully tried cases and litigated around the country in state and federal courts and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In a notable case, she successfully defended a small company's ownership of the Brawny mark for plastic bags against an all-out attack in two federal courts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. She also developed expert testimony for the Internal Revenue Service in a $262 million case involving evaluation of assets of the Carnation Company. She handled the acquisition of the famous CURAD mark.When she is not working, you will probably find Janet hiking—often north of the Arctic Circle. Janet's travel has included backpacking trips to Canada's Ellesmere Island (at 80 degrees north latitude, accessible just three weeks a year), Gates of the Arctic National Park, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.Connect with Janet Marvel: Website: https://www.pattishall.com/ Email: jmarvel@pattishall.com Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

Intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, discusses French luxury design house Hermès International SA's trademark trial against digital artist Mason Rothschild for creating and selling “MetaBirkin” NFTs, which depict digital images of the famous Birkin handbag.Josh Lichtenstein, a partner who heads the ERISA fiduciary practice at Ropes & Gray, discusses the US Labor Department facing an unwelcome case of litigation deja vu, as it attempts to implement a climate-friendly retirement investment rule.June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, discusses French luxury design house Hermès International SA's trademark trial against digital artist Mason Rothschild for creating and selling “MetaBirkin” NFTs, which depict digital images of the famous Birkin handbag.Josh Lichtenstein, a partner who heads the ERISA fiduciary practice at Ropes & Gray, discusses the US Labor Department facing an unwelcome case of litigation deja vu, as it attempts to implement a climate-friendly retirement investment rule.June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're pleased to announce that the firm's podcast, In the Public Interest, will return for a third season! Tune in to hear a preview of what to expect this season from our hosts, WilmerHale Partners John Walsh and Felicia Ellsworth. Season Three will kick off with an episode featuring Elizabeth Chan, a full-time Christmas songwriter who recently prevailed in a trademark battle over Mariah Carey. Partner Louis Tompros will join Chan to speak with Ellsworth about the case and Tompros's experience representing Chan before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Later this season, join Walsh and Ellsworth as they catch up with several high-profile WilmerHale alumni. They'll also hear from other notable figures involved in some of the most important issues of the day, from the state of reproductive rights following the US Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to the regulatory landscape of cannabis legalization.

Gloria Tsui-Yip's practice involves obtaining, protecting, and enforcing intellectual property rights for her clients. Gloria prosecutes applications, provides opinions and litigates intellectual property matters, including utility and design patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and/or unfair competition. Gloria is experienced in transferring intellectual property rights through the licensing and the sale of a business, including associated due diligence and opinion work. She has been involved in numerous litigations before the federal courts and proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, Gloria counsels clients on worldwide protection and enforcement (both online and off-line) of intellectual property rights. Gloria is experienced in electronics, electrical, mechanical, internet-related, software, and wireless subject matters. She represents individuals and businesses, including non-profit organizations, in the fashion, beauty, food, alcoholic beverage, toy, jewelry, pet, stationery, polymer, fastener, medical, dental, publishing, automotive, certification industries and with various consumer and industrial goods. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gloria-tsui-yip-9688591b8/ Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C.: https://grr.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/ https://legal.emotiontrac.com/

Gloria Tsui-Yip's practice involves obtaining, protecting, and enforcing intellectual property rights for her clients. Gloria prosecutes applications, provides opinions and litigates intellectual property matters, including utility and design patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and/or unfair competition. Gloria is experienced in transferring intellectual property rights through the licensing and the sale of a business, including associated due diligence and opinion work. She has been involved in numerous litigations before the federal courts and proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, Gloria counsels clients on worldwide protection and enforcement (both online and off-line) of intellectual property rights. Gloria is experienced in electronics, electrical, mechanical, internet-related, software, and wireless subject matters. She represents individuals and businesses, including non-profit organizations, in the fashion, beauty, food, alcoholic beverage, toy, jewelry, pet, stationery, polymer, fastener, medical, dental, publishing, automotive, certification industries and with various consumer and industrial goods. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gloria-tsui-yip-9688591b8/ Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C.: https://grr.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/ https://legal.emotiontrac.com/

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.

The USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision recently in a case involving a trademark application for the word mark "Purple Rain" in connection with an energy drink, filed by a company unrelated to the late performer, Prince. Prince's estate filed an opposition to the trademark based on the proposed trademark creating a false suggestion of a connection to Prince. In a fascinating decision, the TTAB agreed with Prince's estate and so the opposition to the proposed trademark registration was successful. Today's episode of Business is More Exciting than any Game discusses what business entrepreneurs can learn from this decision.

Today we explore brand protection, specifically the world of trademarking, with Amanda Roach and Angela Kalsi, Partners of the Amin Talati Wasserman law firm. In this lighthearted episode, we dive into the basics of trademarking, the value it brings to companies and, interestingly, why it should be regarded as a capital expenditure rather than an operating cost. Learn more on how trademarks work in relation to patents and how to create the strongest types of trademarks (in forms that you'd never expect!). Plus, discover the niche of Trademark Squatting and find out what's happening in the world of CBD product trademarking. _____ About Amanda Roach Amanda's practice focuses on the trade111ark lifecycle. Since 2006, Amanda has counseled clients on brand selection. portfolio strategy, trademark application prosecution, brand enforcement and defense, due diligence, anti-counterfeiting measures. and trademark maintenance stretching from the United States to more than 140 countries around the world. Her extensive knowledge of trade111ark law is much appreciated by her clients as she often secures rights that would be otherwise unattainable using creative. outside-the-box approaches. Amanda is proud to have represented businesses of all sizes from Fortune 100 companies to promising start-ups to not-for­profits allowing her to tailor trademark strategies that respect each client's unique needs and botto111 line. Her clients operate in a wide array of industries including food, dietary supplements. cosmetics, pharmaceuticals. medical equipment, water reclamation, oil and gas. household goods and fixtures. employment, and entertainment. When not hard at work with her amazing trademark team. Amanda enjoys playing with her kids. exploring new cities with her husband. and revising her novel. About Angela Kalsi A seasoned trademark attorney, Angela kalsi understands that a company's most valuable asset is its brand. Angela works with companies large and small to develop robust brand protection strategies. Having managed trademark portfolios for Fortune 500 companies, start-ups. and everything in between, Angela is adept at tailoring her advice to fit a particular client's needs. Angela has worked with companies in a diverse array of industries and brings this broad-based experience to every problem she solves. Angela specializes in US and international trademark prosecution, guiding her clients in trademark selection, registration, and maintenance. Her practice spans over fifty countries. Angela has a proven track record of resolving her clients' trademark disputes, including in cases before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Angela's experience also includes registering works at the Copyright Office and authoring a variety of intellectual property agreements. An art lover, Angela worked at the Lyric Opera of Chicago and the Chicago International Film Festival prior to practicing law. She brings this love of creativity to her work and never tires of seeing what her clients create. Whether it is an imaginative tagline or an eye-catching logo, Angela feels passionate about her role in protecting her clients' brands and creations. When she is not hard at work for her clients. Angela delights in reading great novels. trying new restaurants. and perfecting her karaoke repertoire.

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

Coming up in this week's episode: Facebook penalty announced by Irish DPC, Footballers demand reward for use of their personal data, Microsoft thwarts largest ever DDOS attack, Local Authority GDPR breach league table, Amazon Ring breaks Data Protection Act 2018, McDonalds data breach, Acer data breach, Imperial College data breach, Thingiverse data breach, Chesterfield Borough Council faces legal action after data breach, Visible data breach, Accenture data breach, Pandemic caused data breaches across UK Business sector, Belgian Covid-19 app data breach, Lithuania journalists take action to stop GDPR hiding names of individuals involved in corruption, BCS gives opinion on proposed UK GDPR changes, Pirate Party opposes changes to Whois data, Trademark Trial and Appeal board rules on GDPR in US court documents

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.

Hi, I'm Anthony Verna, managing partner, Verna Law. You can see us on the web at vernalaw.com. So 2021 is coming up - Happy New Year! That's why we're dressed casually: It's the holiday season.! However, the patent and trademark office has said big changes come in 2021. Those big changes? New fees! Thanks, federal government, for raising our fees in the middle of a pandemic, in a bad economy. However, not much we can do with that. The patent and trademark office is raising rates. Come January 1st, a standard patent and trademark office trademark application is going up to $350 per class. Now, a standard application is when an applicant actually types in his or her or its own goods and services description. A plus application is when a set of goods and services are selected from already written phrases. And usually this is only good for, you know, apparel, uh, uh, home where things where you can really list the goods and services as a list.That's going up to $250 per class, which is up from $225 per class. So again, standard application is up to $350 from 275, and a plus application is up to $250 from $225. And, if you are looking to oppose an application or cancel a registration, well, that's going up from $400 for class to $600 per class. So to file a case in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is now going to cost more than filing in federal district court, when you're asking for monetary damages. Yeah, I have to say, I think there's something about that that stinks a little bit, but the, again, that's what we've been handed. There's also going to be fees that didn't exist before in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. So for example, if you're filing a 90 day extension, that's going to be $200.If you're going to be filing a 60 day extension requests, that's going to be $400 an application. And if you're going to be filing an extension of time to file an appeal brief, it's going to be a hundred dollars per application and a new fee for, uh, filing a, uh, an oral argument hearing. That's right. The middle of your case, you would like an oral argument hearing. It's 500, hundred dollars per proceeding if you want the oral argument. So we have new fees from the patent and trademark office. What I would say is budget accordingly to your needs. Thanks very much. Again, my name is Anthony Verna, managing partner, Verna Law. You can see it right there. Visit us at vernalaw.com. I look forward to answering all your questions again.

Tiger Lily Ventures, a British company was seeking to name their whiskey Lehman Brothers. The trademark lapsed in the U.S. Register. The Barclays failed to renew the trademark in 2013 and Tiger Lily jumped on top of that and filed a trademark for whiskey and beer using the Lehman Brothers name. The argument that Barclay's made about the marks was a) they own the marks, b) the marks are famous and c) clearly if Tiger Lily uses the marks for whiskey, even though it's not the same goods and services as Lehman Brothers Financial Services or Barclays Financial Services, people are going to make some association back to the original owner of the mark, in this case, Barclays, and it would result therefore in dilution of the distinctive quality of Barclay's mark. Further, the Tiger Lily's mark falsely alludes to a connection between Barclay's predecessor in interest Lehman Brothers.  Despite Tiger Lily's defense that Lehman let the mark lapse, all trademark rights derived from use in commerce and common law rights are king if you've been using it first. Registration helps, but it doesn't give you absolute rights to use something. Tiger Lily's defense that they were the "first to file" and that Barclays had abandoned the mark failed and the TTAB, Trademark Trial and Appeals Board eventually found in favor of Barclays sustaining the likelihood of confusion argument, relying on two key considerations in the DuPont analysis. The TTAB said that the similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods and services, while they're very different, the marks identical in sound appearance and meaning. And because the mark is relatively famous in this case, even where goods and services are not competitive or intrinsically related, the use of identical marks can lead to the assumption that there's a common source. The TTAB went on to say the goods and services need not be identical or even competitive to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. And in this case they found Lehman Brothers is famous and that Tiger Lily's goods and services are the type that could be easily encompassed in the commercial repertoire of a famous mark owner, such as Barclays, because Barclays is so huge. So Tiger Lily has the opportunity to appeal this decision, we'll see if they do, but for now they are out of the game.

On July 3rd, the Washington Redskins announced that it would review its team name after nearly two decades of vigorously fighting legal challenges by Native Americans to keep it. Two registration cancellation actions filed in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office[1] culminated in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, a decision by a federal district court in Virginia on July 8th, 2015, that the “REDSKINS” name and federally registered trademark was considered disparaging of Native Americans under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act and therefore not eligible for federal trademark registration under U.S. trademark law. While the Redskins were appealing their registration cancellation decision to the Virginia federal appellate court, a landmark Supreme Court case, Matal v. Tam, held that the disparagement clause of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act was unconstitutional for violating First Amendment free speech rights when it reviewed a trademark registration refusal by the USPTO of the “SLANTS” mark by an Asian-American music band. Thus, the law on which Native Americans were able to have the REDSKINS registered marks canceled was stricken, and the Redskins managed to preserve the team’s right to register its controversial marks. Enter the force of the market, arguably more significant than the force of law, and the Redskins suddenly have a change of heart. Companies that generate revenue for the Redskins began targeting what matters most to the team – its wallet. FedEx, which owns naming rights to the team’s stadium, announced the night before that it would exit the multimillion-dollar agreement if the team did not change its name. The Redskins were also under pressure from other big sponsors and resellers of its merchandise that featured their registered trademarks, including Amazon, Walmart, Nike, and Target, all of which stopped carrying the team’s merchandise. The monetary pressure mounted to the point where Dan Snyder, the team owner, was forced to wave the white flag. The team had maintained its controversial Redskins name since it was initially adopted in 1933. However, on Monday, the NFL’s Washington team officially announced that it would abandon its name and its 1970s-era logo, depicting the profile of a Native American man. Following the team’s announcement that it will abandon its name, speculation on what the new name will be has run rampant, and so have new trademark applications for possible names, similar to the situation discussed in our April 23rd, 2020 blog article entitled “Everybody “COVIDS” a CORONAVIRUS Trademark Registration But It’s Not That Easy.” A review of trademark applications demonstrates that McCaulay, an Alexandria, Virginia, realtor, has attempted to register trademarks on eight different Washington-themed names, several of which have new applications filed this month. McCaulay has received registrations for “WASHINGTON RED-TAILED HAWKS,” “WASHINGTON AMERICAN,” and “WASHINGTON FOOTBALL CLUB and he tried to register at least a couple of trademarks as early as 2014.” McCaulay owns pending applications to register ‘WASHINGTON RED WOLVES,” WASHINGTON REDTAILS,” “WASHINGTON MONUMENTS,” “WASHINGTON VETERANS,” WASHINGTON RENEGADES GRIDIRON FOOTBALL,” and “WASHINGTON WARRIORS.” McCaulay’s trademark registrations have made him a target of many football fans who are labeling him a trademark troll. However, as our previous blog in April blog pointed out, “trolling” to own trademark registrations for marks believed to be on the verge of extraordinary popularity has been increasingly trending for some time now and is rarely successful. After the widespread criticism of McCaulay for attempting to appropriate team names expected to be desired by the Redskins and thereby delay their renaming process – despite the Redskins’ negligence in failing to procure alternate names much earlier before being pressured to do so –McCauley has retained a sports attorney who has since sent Dan Snyder a letter stating that McCauley is not a trademark troll because “this was simply just an expensive hobby for him and he does not have any intention of holding up the Washington team’s process.” Interestingly enough, Las Vegas sportsbooks such as Bovada, have the Red Tails, Warriors, and Monuments listed as three of the top five betting favorites for Washington’s new NFL team name. Only time will tell if McCaulay’s tactics will lead to a settlement with the team and a huge paycheck. If you suspect that someone is squatting on trademark registrations to force a buyout before you use the name for your business, you may need to seek assistance from a trademark lawyer at Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig. There are avenues to challenge and even cancel weak trademark registrations that were only made as an impediment to someone else using the naming rights. One of our firm’s experienced trademark lawyers can help you secure the trademark you need today. Contact our team at 703-777-7319,  or email clientservices@dbllawyers.com to schedule a consultation.   [1] The first cancellation proceeding was determined to have been invalid for having been filed after the statute of limitations. The second cancellation proceeding was filed by recently emancipated minors for whom the statute of limitations was refreshed. https://www.dbllawyers.com/washington-redskins-trademark-registration-challenge/

Booking.com is an online travel agency, operating under both that name and at that domain name. The company sought to trademark its name with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO had denied the application: it ruled that the term "booking" as applied to the class of travel services was a generic term, and that Booking.com had not shown how their mark had gained distinctiveness. Booking.com appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, (TTAB), which upheld that "booking" was a generic term within the class of travel services, and simply appending "dot com" did not change its generic nature. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

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.

Today a little bit more lighthearted subject. The USPTO has struck down a company called Adco's attempts to register a trademark for Trump-it, that also featured a series of design marks that included what is clearly the President's iconic hairstyle embedded in the brand mark.  The USPTO essentially said it didn't have permission from President Trump.  They need permission of the person who they're clearly associating with. Not only did they file the mark, they spent money appealing the mark to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and their argument was that it was unconstitutional of the USPTO to deny registration of the marks on grounds of free speech. The USPTO came back saying that Adco had erred in treating federal trademark law as something that limits the universe of marks eligible for the benefit of federal trademark registration, as akin to direct restrictions on speech.

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.

This post appeared first on written by Roger Bora, U.S. trademark attorney and former USPTO Trademark Examining Attorney. Trademark Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents – Infringing Trademarks in Different Languages Podcast Episode Begins as :45s Trademark Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents.  This podcast summarizes the recent U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision of In re Compass Automotive Inc., which featured the issue of the doctrine of foreign equivalents. I. Background of In re Compass Automotive […] Podcast 9: Trademark Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents – Infringing Trademarks in Different Languages.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced on July 2, 2019 a new rule requiring all foreign-domiciled trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings to be represented by an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States. The requirement applies to all trademark applicants, registrants, and parties whose permanent legal residence or principal place of business is outside the United States. These applicants, registrants, and parties are required to have a U.S.-licensed attorney represent them at the USPTO in all trademark matters. Additionally, U.S.-licensed attorneys representing anyone before the USPTO in trademark matters are required to confirm they are an active member in good standing of their bar and to provide their bar membership information. “Many other countries worldwide have had this requirement for decades,” said USPTO Commissioner for Trademarks Mary Boney Denison. “We believe that this new rule will help improve the quality of submissions to the USPTO.” Canadian patent agents will no longer be authorized to represent Canadian trademark applicants, registrants, or parties before the USPTO in trademark matters. Canadian trademark attorneys and agents will continue, if eligible, to be recognized as additionally appointed practitioners who can represent their Canadian clients, although the USPTO will correspond only with the appointed U.S.-licensed attorney. This new rule becomes effective on August 3rd. Here's what the USPTO says about it: “Businesses rely on the U.S. trademark register to make important legal decisions about their brands. In order to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the register, for the benefit of all its users, the USPTO must have the appropriate tools to enforce compliance by all applicants and registrants. We discovered an increasing number of foreign trademark applicants, registrants, and parties are filing inaccurate and possibly fraudulent submissions with the USPTO that do not comply with U.S. trademark law or the USPTO's rules. Often, these submissions are made with the assistance of foreign individuals or entities not authorized to represent applicants at the USPTO. Many countries already require local attorneys to represent applicants. A significant number of trademark offices around the world require foreign-domiciled applicants and registrants to obtain local counsel as a condition for filing papers with those trademark offices.” Frankly, the phrase “possibly fraudulent submissions” refers to the growing number of Chinese submissions to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. One main issue of foreign filings are what we call the “trademark specimen.” The specimen must be an actual picture or photograph of the trademark on advertising or on products. Sadly, many foreign filings contain a computer-generated graphic of what a trademark would look like on advertising or on products. Those computer-generated graphics are insufficient for registration in the USPTO, but many more foreign filings are more suspect of having false trademark specimen than domestic filings. This new rule means that any foreign person or business must use an attorney licensed in a state in the United States. This does mean more work for attorneys in the United States as those who want to apply for a U.S. trademark will need to seek one out.

In late June, the Supreme Court struck down the part of federal trademark law that prohibited the registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks. The case was called Iancu v. Brunetti, and it was a follow-up to the court's Matal v. Tam ruling two years ago. In Tam, the justices unanimously ruled that the Lanham Act's ban on disparaging trademarks was a violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. In Brunetti, the justices used the First Amendment to strike down another ban: the one on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks. Mr. Erik Brunetti sought to register the word mark "FUCT," in connection with clothing. The examining attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") refused registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, on the basis that the mark was vulgar, and therefore "immoral" or "scandalous."  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") upheld the examining attorney's decision on appeal.  Mr. Brunetti then appealed the TTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit.  The Federal Circuit requested additional briefing from the parties following the Supreme Court's decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017), which held that Section 2(a)'s prohibition on registering "disparaging" trademarks is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In December 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous ruling declaring unconstitutional Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibits the registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks.   The issue came down to a key part of First Amendment law: is the regulation in question viewpoint-neutral? The First Amendment protects speech despite the viewpoint it expresses, so the government (in this case, the USPTO) cannot pick winners and losers because it likes some views better than others. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Elena Kagan concluded that is exactly what the USPTO had been doing in applying the “immoral or scandalous” ban codified in the Lanham Act. Kagan examined the USPTO's treatment of trademarks related to drugs: trademark examiners rejected “YOU CAN'T SPELL HEALTHCARE WITHOUT THC,” “MARIJUANA COLA,” and “KO KANE.” But they approved “D.A.R.E. TO RESIST DRUGS AND VIOLENCE” and “SAY NO TO DRUGS—REALITY IS THE BEST TRIP IN LIFE.” According to the Court, those decisions are clearly viewpoint-based and, therefore, unconstitutional, even if they are “understandable” because of the trademarks' potential to offend. Justice Sotomayor in her dissenting opinion—anticipate a rush to register trademarks containing arguably vulgar, profane, or obscene words and images, with the PTO now powerless to say no. She's right! This ruling means that trademark registrations are open to any type of language. It's the Wild West in the dusty, old town of TrademarkVille. What do you want to say about your product? Does your product's branding have a viewpoint? Registrations at the USPTO now must be open to all, even those marks that will offend. Intellectual Property law seemed to be one area that was stuck in the past, even as technology keeps changing at a rapid pace. Not anymore. Bring on all the words that you may need to cover your ears to hear. They're registrable. Here is a lightly-edited transcript of the video blog: Trademark law generally does not change. In the last two years, however, trademark law has had a couple of really big changes, thanks to the Supreme Court. Several 6-3 decisions have basically allowed, well, some bolder language to come in and well, maybe some trademarks that don't actually treat people very well to be registered. How did this happen? A couple of years ago, a band called The Slants wanted to register the band name as trademark. It was rejected. Why? Because "The Slants" was deemed to be words that disparaged people. Specifically, it was deemed to be an ethnic slur and a trademark under the

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)

Potential Plaintiffs A trademark search shows possible plaintiffs.  Does your business' trademark cause a likelihood of confusion with other trademarks that are already registered or in use?  It is impossible to judge without a trademark search. Potential plaintiffs are those whose marks are either registered before your mark or in use before your mark.  Many businesses find themselves as defendants in either trademark oppositions in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board or in trademark infringement lawsuits in federal district court because of the lack of a trademark search.  Finding these potential plaintiffs helps to judge the risk of being a defendant in a trademark dispute. Alternatively, if a business has already registered a trademark while your mark is in use, then you will need to dispute that registration.  Is it worth that dispute or is it more economical to find a new trademark? Analysis of the Trademark A trademark search reveals how strong your trademark choice is.  For example, if there are 50 other similar trademarks in economically related goods/services, then the trademark you chose is particularly weak, especially if the trademark itself is related to the goods/services the mark is to represent. If a trademark search shows that a trademark is in a crowded field, then it may be better to find a new mark.  Fanciful trademarks are stronger and will probably live in a less-crowded field, making them easier to police and enforce. There are five levels to trademark strength. Fanciful marks A fanciful/inherently distinctive trademark is prima facie registrable, and comprises an entirely invented or “fanciful” word. For example, “Kodak” had no meaning before it was adopted and used as a trademark in relation to goods, whether photographic goods or otherwise. Invented marks are neologisms which will not previously have been found in any dictionary. Arbitrary marks An arbitrary trademark is usually a common word which is used in a meaningless context (e.g. “Apple” for computers). Such marks consist of words or images which have some dictionary meaning before being adopted as trademarks, but which are used in connection with products or services unrelated to that dictionary meaning. Arbitrary marks are also immediately eligible for registration. Salty would be an arbitrary mark if it used in connection with e.g. telephones such as in Salty Telephones, as the term “salt” has no particular connection with such products. Suggestive marks A suggestive trademark tends to indicate the nature, quality, or a characteristic of the products or services in relation to which it is used, but does not describe this characteristic, and requires imagination on the part of the consumer to identify the characteristic. Suggestive marks invoke the consumer's perceptive imagination. An example of a suggestive mark is Blu-ray, a new technology of high-capacity data storage. Descriptive marks A descriptive mark is a term with a dictionary meaning which is used in connection with products or services directly related to that meaning. An example might be Salty used in connection with saltine crackers or anchovies. Such terms are not registrable unless it can be shown that distinctive character has been established in the term through extensive use in the marketplace (see further below). Lektronic was famously refused protection by the USPTO on ground of being descriptive for electronic goods. Generic marks A generic term is the common name for the products or services in connection with which it is used, such as “salt” when used in connection with sodium chloride. A generic term is not capable of serving the essential trademark function of distinguishing the products or services of a business from the products or services of other businesses, and therefore cannot be afforded any legal protection. This is because there has to be some term which ...

In this episode for the protectors of cool stuff, we are talking about blockchain technologies. Tom Marlow and Michael Henson discuss applications and intellectual property surrounding the blockchain space. Michael Henson, a Partner at Perkins Coie, provides seasoned intellectual property counsel to businesses of varying sizes that trust him to employ his wide-ranging intellectual property prosecution and litigation experience to achieve positive results. Combining extensive patent and trademark prosecution experience with a litigation background, Michael offers his clients a unique approach to their sophisticated intellectual property needs. Michael is a registered patent attorney whose practice emphases patent prosecution, patent litigation, and strategic patent portfolio management and analysis. Businesses spanning a diverse array of technologies regularly engage Michael to help develop, protect and monetize intellectual property. Michael is adept at handling intellectual property procurement, transactional, and enforcement matters in the United States and abroad, and in particular, regularly assists clients with infringement, freedom-to-operate and validity opinions, patent prosecution, trademark, and related licensing matters. Michael is also experienced in virtually all phases of patent, trademark and other types of intellectual property law, including appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Michael has extensive experience in a wide variety of technological disciplines and has prepared and prosecuted hundreds of patents (or had related litigation experience) in the fields of computer science, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering, specifically including technology related to digital and analog circuits, power distribution devices, semiconductors, encryption, authentication, e-commerce, real time (streaming) communications, signal processing, data storage, graphical user interfaces, disposable medical devices, ultrasonic signal detection, vehicle systems, spinal cord stimulation, medical (oncology) revenue regeneration software, medical billing practice management systems, prosthetics, aircraft superchargers, shipping products and systems, baby goods, locking devices, hitch devices, cartridge filling apparatuses, dental devices, sporting goods, expandable/collapsible canopies and various other electrical and mechanical products, Prior to launching his legal career, Michael worked as a co-op engineer in the steel industry. He also worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, with top secret clearances, while obtaining his degree in electrical engineering. Email address: MHenson@perkinscoie.com Phone Number: (303)291-2337 Tom Marlow is the Chief Technology Officer for Black Hills IP and is the President of Black Hills IP Renewals, our patent annuities management company. Tom is a registered patent attorney and electrical engineer with a passion for IP systems. Previously, Tom ran the IP department for a multi-billion dollar semiconductor manufacturing company where he oversaw worldwide IP strategy, enforcement, and procurement. Tom taps his in-house and prior private practice experience to develop and deliver products and services that address known pain-points in the patent process. Tom has spoken before diverse audiences from patent attorneys, to C-suite executives to engineers to startup founders on patent management, analysis, and strategy over the years. Tom also has experience prosecuting and managing patent prosecution on a global scale and is the co-author of the Lexis published “US Patent Prosecutor's Desk Reference”. Tom was previously co-chair of the patent analytics and portfolio management department at the Minneapolis patent firm Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. He received his law degree from Franklin Pierce Law Center, and Bachelor's of Science from the University of Notre Dame.

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.

Anton is the Founder of Trademark Garden, PLLC, a law firm that serves the needs of small businesses, innovators, and startups, offering a full suite of intellectual property and business law services. Anton has experience in trademark prosecution, negotiation of license and assignment agreements, and IP litigation; including Opposition and Cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, representing both petitioners and respondents.   Watch my Celebrity interviews on my YouTube Channel! Go here> https://goo.gl/EA9x6D Connect with Bert Martinez on Facebook. Connect with Bert Martinez on Twitter.

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).

Darrell Castle discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision involving the First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech Clause. Transcript SCOTUS SAYS IT'S OK TO HATE AGAIN Hello this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. Today is Friday July 14, 2017. In this Report I will be talking about the recent United States Supreme Court decision in which the court unanimously held that so called hate speech is protected under the 1st amendment. The decision was 8-0 since Justice Gorsuch had not taken his seat at the time of the ruling. This case arose eight years ago when an Asian rock band out of Portland Oregon decided to call itself “The Slants”. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office kept the band from registering its name and rejected its appeal citing the Lanham Act which prohibits any trademark that could disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute any person living or dead. A lower Federal Court agreed with the band but then the Patent and Trademark Office filed suit to avoid being compelled to register the name.  On Monday June 19, the Supreme Court sided with The Slants. Writing for four of the judges, Justice Samuel Alito said “The idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the first amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.” Writing for the other four Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an egregious form of content discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional. A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.” The Justices, had a problem with the idea that commercial speech can be cleansed of any content deemed offensive by the government. Cleansing commercial speech of anything offensive or even determining what is offensive is not the government's responsibility. This decision,  will have far reaching results. For example, one benefactor of the decision is the Washington Redskins of the National Football League. In June 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ordered that all registrations for the Redskins trademark be canceled under the disparagement clause. That decision was the result of the decades long battle with various Native American heritage groups who believed the name Redskins to be offensive and disparaging to Native Americans. The Redskins filed suit challenging the Constitutionality of the disparagement clause but that suit was stayed pending the outcome of The Slants case.  I imagine that Redskins owner Dan Snider's team of lawyers was in the Trademark Office the next business day after this decision came out. Other business people whose brands have been rejected or who didn't file because of the disparagement clause can now file freely. The Redskins have fought to keep their trademark in the face of claims that the name is a racial slur. The Slants had its trademark rejected first in 2010 on the grounds that it was hurtful to a stigmatized community.  The band contended that marginalized groups should “determine what's best for ourselves”.  Whether or not Asian Americans are a marginalized group in America is another argument but with this decision the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that it is not up to the government to manipulate the rules and punish individuals in order to correct perceived societal injustices. This decision by the Supreme Court was a major victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of speech in general. The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling “a major victory for the First Amendment”. What then is freedom of speech as it is set out in the First Amendment.

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

Welcome to the Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck podcast series. Two attorneys from the firm's Intellectual Property Department discuss how some of today's most important IP legal cases impact businesses and branding. Emily Holmes, of counsel at Brownstein, leverages her intellectual property experience to help clients develop, protect and enforce their intellectual property rights in the United States and internationally. Litigator Kerry LeMonte, an associate at the firm, works actively with clients to resolve complex business disputes and protect their valuable intellectual property, including high-profile brands. In episode two of the Branding and Trademark Podcast Series, Emily and Kerry discuss how a recent decision from The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board relates to competitors in the beer and wine industry that want to use the same or similar trademarks through consent or coexistence agreements.

Anthony M. Verna III, is the managing partner at Verna Law, P.C. Anthony has his Bachelor's degree in computer science from Case Western Reserve and his J.D. from Rutgers Law School.  Not only practicing at his own firm, Anthony has lead multiple continuing education classes and professional development seminars including "Practicing Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board" at Lawline.com. Show notes at http://hellotechpros.com/anthony-verna-entrepreneurship/ What You Will Learn in This Episode What could happen if you don't read the End User Licence Agreements. The first step every entrepreneur should take to protect their intellectual property. Who owns the content when two or more parties collaborate. The tricky boundaries when authoring software using open source contributions. When Creative Commons is appropriate for your work and when to choose a different license.  

Roberta Jacobs-Meadway has more than 40 years of experience representing clients in a wide range of industries in connection with trademark, copyright and unfair competition matters. Her practice includes litigating intellectual property disputes in the federal courts and trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. She has significant experience in connection with the licensing of intellectual property and counseling with respect to trademark and copyright issues.She has been recognized by her peers for her experience and expertise, being honored by Chambers USA and others as a leader in trademark and copyright issues and related litigation. She is a frequent lecturer and author on topics relating to intellectual property. Roberta has also been active in the legal community and served as the co-chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession (2013-2015) as well as on the Advisory Board of ALI-CLE for intellectual property.  

Jordan Weinstein analyzes two recent trademark decisions from the Supreme Court. In the first case, the Supreme Court discussed whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding of likelihood of confusion in opposition or cancellation cases can be issue preclusive. The second case is about trademark tacking – slight alterations to the mark after filing. [...]

Greg Carr has more than 25 years of experience, he is the Managing Partner at CARR IP law .He  practices the full spectrum of Intellectual Property law, including domestic and foreign matters and proceedings before federal courts throughout the U.S., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. He is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and in Texas courts.   Carol Henry is a Licensed Professional Counselor, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and Certified Hypnotherapist.  She has been in private practice for 22 years, working with adults, both individuals as well as couples.  She has done many workshops on Codependence, Boundaries, Intimacy,  presentations in the field of Traumatology, as well as radio and Television interviews.    Richard Best serves is a certified master coach,as an executive coach to senior and high potential executives helping them to enhance and elevate their leadership abilities by focusing on servant leadership and emotional intelligence.  Ronnie L. Hicks Jr  is the Senior Tax Attorney for Foundation Tax Services  Alan and Bonnie Cashman The Cashmans have opened an innovative multi-discipline fitness center,  LAB 5 Fitness, in Seattle's Capitol Hill, and have started Cashman Lifestyle as a way to share their expertise in helping others live healthier, wealthier lives. The Cashmans “enjoy the good life.”   

We are without a Zohner, as he's abandoned us to get an autograph or something. Iran thinks it can survive without Google, RIM is limping along better than expected, and Europe needs to suck it up a bit!Headlines:Iran finally took it's a ball and went home.Iran is also cyber attacking US BanksFacebook turns off facial recognition amid European fears.Foxconn: "Our suicide rate has gone down! Please ignore our 'Death by Riot' rate." Europe reminds Microsoft, "We still really don't like you!"RIM event touts new features of BB10 that we saw in May and look even more like every other phone. Also, a music video.RIM continues to shamelessly bribe developers.Tesla starts to bring power as far as the eye a see!The iPhone 5 has problems but Apple doesn’t care. And another one.Charges of corruption within Wikipedia mean that college paper you faked might not be credible.What does Intel do when upset? Tears down it’s the biggest ally.Fast LaneAt an anti-Japanese gaming demonstration in China, a girl was assaulted by three protesters for her choice of cosplay. Her character, however, was Chinese. Chinese authorities have released a statement that these protesters were nothing more than “brainless beasts”, marking the first time in history the rest of the world has been in total agreement with the Chinese about their protesters.Fresh from the disastrous launch of their new Maps in iOS6, Apple is trying desperately to hire ex-Google Maps programmers in hopes they can pretty up their “dough-faced homunculi” of an app.The cast of Red Dwarf X is asking for a Doctor Who crossover. Who would win in such a fight? The fans would.The Aporkalypse is upon us! According to the National Pig Association in Great Britain, drought conditions this year will lead to an unavoidable world shortage of pork and bacon next year. So this is how society will end...Apple’s request to trademark it's orange Music icon found on all iOS devices was denied in court this week. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board said the icon was too close to that of, wait for it, Myspace! Oh, the Apple iRony!California has just legalized driverless cars on the road. While many safety groups question the wisdom of such a move, California Governor Edmund Brown Jr. was quick to point out that this should help keep the public safe from DUI’s of former child actors.Hubble is still going strong with the recent release of the “Extreme Deep Field” image. Now looking into the farthest reaches of SSSPPPAAACCCEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Not content to just try and sue Apple, Samsung is now going after LG as well. Since both companies are based in South Korea, the local courts will be dealing with the issue, however, LG seems to have a convincing counter-suit that could ban Samsung phones from being sold in Korea. Doesn’t Samsung want a single country they can still sell it?!Talking Point: How Do You Anti-Virus?I've noticed that there is a lot of debate about the best Anti-Virus Anti-Malware... Program out their, but which really is the best? From Free to Paid, then comparing Free & Paid. Will Stolen Droids make this a talking point, or possibly a regular segment as software changes and updates?Thanks. TovenZuke’s Favorite: Want to get off this rock? Follow these easy steps!Schmidty’s Favorite: Sesame Street: Hunger Games, Avengers, Dr. Who, and The NewsroomStark’s Favorite: Google presented by the NFL replacement refs See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Friday November 4th at Noon EST Attorney Mark L. Donahey joins Donna Amos to discuss trademark law and the importance of selecting and protecting a strong brand.   Mark L. Donahey is an Associate Attorney with Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC, an innovative intellectual property law firm in Falls Church, VA, serving small businesses and entrepreneurs throughout the United States since 1999. Mark advises clients on Federal trademark law. He has helped numerous clients register their brands with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and he regularly represents clients in trademark disputes and appeals before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.   Mark will discuss the fundamentals of intellectual property and trademark law, the importance of intellectual property protection to small businesses and entrepreneurs, and tips for selecting and protecting a strong brand. Mark will also discuss some of the challenges small businesses have traditionally faced when protecting their brands and the ways the legal profession has evolved in recent years to meet the particular needs of start-ups, small businesses, and entrepreneurs.   Mark will share about what makes a good brand name, why trademark and intellectual property are particularly important to small businesses and entrepreneurs, and why it is important to protect your brands and how to do so.  Connect with Mark:Mark L. Donahey, Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLCmark@erikpelton.comwww.erikpelton.com 703.525.8009

Friday November 4th at Noon EST Attorney Mark L. Donahey joins Donna Amos to discuss trademark law and the importance of selecting and protecting a strong brand.   Mark L. Donahey is an Associate Attorney with Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC, an innovative intellectual property law firm in Falls Church, VA, serving small businesses and entrepreneurs throughout the United States since 1999. Mark advises clients on Federal trademark law. He has helped numerous clients register their brands with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and he regularly represents clients in trademark disputes and appeals before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.   Mark will discuss the fundamentals of intellectual property and trademark law, the importance of intellectual property protection to small businesses and entrepreneurs, and tips for selecting and protecting a strong brand. Mark will also discuss some of the challenges small businesses have traditionally faced when protecting their brands and the ways the legal profession has evolved in recent years to meet the particular needs of start-ups, small businesses, and entrepreneurs.   Mark will share about what makes a good brand name, why trademark and intellectual property are particularly important to small businesses and entrepreneurs, and why it is important to protect your brands and how to do so.  Connect with Mark:Mark L. Donahey, Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLCmark@erikpelton.comwww.erikpelton.com 703.525.8009