Trademarks

Trademark publication can be an anxious part of the application process, with fear of aggressive opposition and costly proceedings looming in the background. But many oppositions, whether they are only threatened or actually filed, afford the applicant a discussion with the opposer that can ultimately be helpful in nonobvious ways.

How can one launching a new trademark mitigate the risk of rejection or infringement on the basis of likelihood of confusion with an existing mark? The primary strategy is trademark searching.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has finally filled a gap left by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the standard for finding deceptive intent when trying to prove fraud on the USPTO.

The SharkNinja case as well as other well-established precedents serve as powerful reminders to advertisers of certain best-practices in choosing their trademarks or evaluating whether to challenge their competitors' trademarks.

The likelihood of confusion analysis is often focused on confusion at the time of purchase, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Federal Circuits permit mark holders to allege infringement based on presale, initial-interest confusion. Earlier this year, the Eighth Circuit joined the majority of circuits in permitting recovery for initial-interest confusion in certain circumstances.

the Tenth Circuit held that the Lanham Act can have extraterritorial application, if certain conditions are met. In doing so, the appellate court recognized — and further deepened — an ongoing circuit split.

Nike Seeks $150 Million In Sanctions from Six Chinese Banks, and Loses

The agency announced that the Department of Commerce has applied to register the USPTO's marks in a bid to crack down on scammers who are impersonating the agency.