Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Trademark Board Amends Its Rules of Practice
In an effort to create more efficiency in trademark trial proceedings and to lend clarity to the process, particularly following the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Industries Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has amended its Rules of Practice. Entertainment and intellectual property practitioners and businesses should take note of these changes, as they directly inform the manner in which these matters will be handled moving forward and could potentially affect outcomes.
The amended TTAB Rules of Practice go into effect Jan. 14, 2017, for all subsequent filed proceedings, and will also apply to all then-pending opposition and cancellation proceedings. Notable changes to the Rules of Practice include, among other things, electronic filing and service of pleadings and motions in proceedings, limitations on discovery requests and a shortening of the discovery period. The new amendments to the rules also modify trial procedure in TTAB proceedings, the most significant changes providing for the submission of testimony by declaration in lieu of oral deposition (subject to the other party's ability to cross-examine the declarant via live deposition); limiting the number of discovery requests each party may issue; and shortening the window for discovery.
Since the TTAB Rules of Practice changes that took effect in 2007, the TTAB has recognized that changes in electronic technology afford more efficient management of proceedings being administered by the TTAB and communication between the parties and the TTAB. The amended Rules of Practice will require that all filings be made through the TTAB ESSTTA electronic filing system.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?