Do Not Be Fooled (Part 2): USPTO Issues Warning of Spoof Calls from Scammers
The Brand Protection Blog
by Stephanie Schmidt (US)
3d ago
We have written previously on this blog warning of misleading solicitations. For years,  scammers have impersonated the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in mailings, seeking payments from trademark owners for nonexistent services, such as trademark renewals. This week, the USPTO warned of a new scheme targeting trademark owners. The USPTO put out an alert that scammers have recently started calling trademark customers and impersonating USPTO employees. The impersonators are using a common tactic known as “spoofing”—mimicking the area codes and caller information of USPTO ..read more
Visit website
Transliterations of Chinese Characters Require a Translation Statement
The Brand Protection Blog
by Nathan Mannebach (US)
1w ago
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) refused registration of the mark “ZHIMA” because the applicant, Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd., did not submit a translation of ZHIMA into English. In re Advanced New Techs. Co., 2023 TTAB LEXIS 2, 2023 WL 181172 (TTAB Jan. 12, 2023). In the original refusal, the Examining Attorney determined that a “translation statement is required because ZHIMA is a foreign word that means ‘sesame’ in English.” The applicant disagreed, arguing “although ‘Zhima’ is a transliteration of the Chinese characters for the word ‘sesame,’ the word ‘Zhima’ itself is ..read more
Visit website
USPTO Adds 75 Climate and Green-Tech Terms to Trademark ID Manual
The Brand Protection Blog
by Kaylee A. Sill (US)
1w ago
Earlier this month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is adding new climate and green tech-related terms to the Trademark ID Manual. The USPTO has already added 75 terms that include biomethane, research and development in the field of wind energy, and treatment of captured landfill gasses. Practically, the addition of these terms will allow more trademark applicants who offer green tech to file for trademark applications by using the TEAS Plus form and pay a lower application fee. The initiative is part of a larger effort among federal agencies to address ..read more
Visit website
The Battle Continues After TTAB Refuses Registration for #LAW for Failure to Function as a Trademark
The Brand Protection Blog
by Kirsten Hash (US)
1w ago
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) refused registration of #LAW on the Principal Register finding that #LAW failed to function as a trademark. Pound Law, LLC (“Pound Law” or “Applicant”) was unable to convince the Board that its vanity phone number functions as a trademark for legal services and legal referral services. In re Pound Law, LLC, No. 87724338, 2022 WL 16960106 (TTAB Nov. 9, 2022). Florida-based Pound Law initially filed to protect #LAW on the Principal Register on December 18, 2017. The application claimed ownership of Pound Law’s prior Supplemental Register registration ..read more
Visit website
TTAB Sustains Opposition Based on Applicant’s Failure to Secure the Consent of a Living Individual
The Brand Protection Blog
by Felicia Boyd (US)
1M ago
Terminal Moraine Inc. (“Applicant” or “Terminal Moraine”) sought registration on the Principal Register of the mark: for the following goods and services: Backpacks and shoulder bags for use in camping, and hiking, sold exclusively at sporting goods, outdoor, and mountaineering stores and websites or through the sporting goods departments of general retailers; and Tent flies, Tents; Tents for mountaineering or camping; Tents made of textile materials; Bivouac sacks; Rain flies for tents, all of the aforesaid goods being sold exclusively at sporting goods, outdoor, and mountaineering stores ..read more
Visit website
After Years of Hounding from Jack Daniel’s, Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Bad Spaniels Parody Trademark Case
The Brand Protection Blog
by Felicia Boyd (US)
2M ago
The dispute between Jack Daniel’s and VIP Products LLC (“VIP”) over a parody dog toy continues and will finally proceed to the Supreme Court. The case centers around a parody dog toy sold by VIP that mimics the label of a Jack Daniel’s whisky bottle. The toy replaces the text “Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7” with “Bad Spaniels The Old No. 2,” and generally mimics the black and white design of the label and the square shape of the bottle: Previous decisions in the case have held that the design is a clear parody and therefore does not infringe the Jack Daniel’s trademark and/or trade dress rights. Ja ..read more
Visit website
No Likelihood of Confusion Between “SMOKES & Design” and “SMOK”
The Brand Protection Blog
by Felicia Boyd (US)
2M ago
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the “SMOKES & Design” mark owned by Fancy Pants Products, LLC (“Applicant”), generally used in connection with cannabis products, and the “SMOK” mark owned by Shenzhen IVPS Technology Co. Ltd (“Opposer”), generally used in connection with electronic cigarettes. Shenzhen IVPS Tech. Co. v. Fancy Pants Prods., LLC, Opp. No. 9126391, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 383, 2022 WL 16646840 (TTAB Oct. 31, 2022). Applicant’s victory before the TTAB was achieved even though it did not submit any brief, testimony or ..read more
Visit website
Supreme Court to Examine the Reach of the Lanham Act to Impose Liability on Conduct Outside of the United States
The Brand Protection Blog
by Felicia Boyd (US)
2M ago
Sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act impose civil liability on any person who “use[s] in commerce” a trademark in a manner that “is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”  15 U.S.C. 1114(1)(a); 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1). Notably, the Lanham Act defines commerce broadly as “all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress,” id. § 1127, and affords federal courts jurisdiction over all claims arising under it, id. § 1121(a). Circuit courts have developed different tests to determine whether the scope of the Lanham Act extends to a defendant’s activi ..read more
Visit website
USPTO SHORTENED OFFICE ACTION RESPONSE DEADLINES TO GO INTO EFFECT IN DECEMBER
The Brand Protection Blog
by Stephanie Schmidt (US)
3M ago
Starting on December 3, 2022, the timeframe for trademark applicants to respond to office actions at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) will be shortened from six months to three months. This change is the result of the implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (“TMA”). You can find more information on the TMA in our article here. Applicants (or applicants’ counsel) may request an additional three months to file responses with the payment of a $125 fee. The new response period will apply for office actions issued on or after December 3, 2022, against pending applica ..read more
Visit website
Branding alert for Royal Warrant holders
The Brand Protection Blog
by Abida Chaudri
4M ago
Kat friends Jamie Brazier and Abida Chaudri provide an enlightening discussion of the right to use the Royal Arms following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. It was with great sadness that the world learned, on 8 September 2022, of the death of Queen Elizabeth II the longest reigning monarch in British history. Immediately on her death, Charles III (then Prince of Wales) became king, and shortly thereafter Prince William (by virtue of being the next in line to the throne) was appointed as the Prince of Wales. “Royal Warrants” were, until the death of Queen Elizabeth II, gran ..read more
Visit website

Follow The Brand Protection Blog on Feedspot

Continue with Google
OR