Mark Fails To Satisfy Lawful Use Requirement

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirmed the refusal to register HERBAL ACCESS on the grounds that the mark was not used in lawful commerce.  The Board started its analysis with the principle that to qualify for federal trademark protection, the mark must be lawfully used

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas recently rejected an attempt by two online content providers to secure coverage in connection with a copyright infringement action commenced against them by an adult entertainment company.[1]

Perfect 10, Inc. (“Perfect 10”) filed an action against Giganews, Inc. (“Giganews”) and Livewire Services, Inc. (“Livewire”) for

Only days after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish privacy guidelines applicable to Internet service providers (ISPs),1 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took two actions on the privacy front that will affect a smaller, but fast growing, industry: developers of mobile health applications. Given the pervasive use of

Businesses that peddle counterfeit goods beware.  According to a recent decision by the Second Circuit, the advertising injury provisions of a standard general liability policy do not obligate an insurer to indemnify its insured for damages resulting from the insured’s sale of counterfeit goods.  Given that the MSRP for all goods seized by the Department

Board Requires Disclosure Of Unredacted Documents

The Board granted a motion by Intex Recreation Corp. and Intex Marketing Ltd. (“Intex”) to compel The Coleman Company, Inc. (“Coleman”) to produce unredacted versions of certain documents.  Coleman claimed that the redacted information was either irrelevant or confidential.  Intex argued in response that relevance is not an

“Broadband Internet access service” (BIAS) is the essential conduit for the conduct of our daily personal and private lives, without which all Internet activity comes to a stop. Indeed, the Federal Communications Commission recently referred to BIAS as “the most significant communications technology of today.”1 Nevertheless, because BIAS is the road on which Internet traffic

Board Rejects Request For Reconsideration

By Order dated July 13, 2015, the Board denied a motion to dismiss filed by Knowluxe LLC (“Knowluxe”) seeking dismissal of a petition for cancellation on the grounds that the claims were implausible and that the rights asserted by Guess? IP Holder L.P. (“Guess”) conflicted with the: (1) doctrine of

Early in February, the European Commission and the U.S. government agreed on a new framework for transatlantic data flows, which they are referring to as the “EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.” Lawyers advising clients with an online presence (i.e., almost all lawyers and almost all clients) typically have had little reason to be concerned about the agreement,

Michael Cannata’s column was published in the New York Intellectual Property Law’s December 2015/January 2016 issue of “The Report.”  Michael’s column is entitled, “Notable Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Decisions.”

Complete summaries of the decisions can be found here.

Board Dismisses Section 2(a) Challenge to MARATHON MONDAY Application

The Board dismissed an opposition filed by the Boston Athletic Association (“BAA”) to an application filed by Velocity, LLC (“Velocity”) seeking registration of MARATHON MONDAY in connection with “clothing, namely, tops, bottoms, headwear, sweatshirts, sweat pants, jackets, pullovers, caps, hats, socks.”

BAA alleged that the mark