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

Many believe that we are on the precipice of a deluge of litigation—both individual and multiparty/class action—concerning how an individual’s data is handled and the remedy, if any, if that data is misused or wrongfully disclosed. A case recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court involves the intersection of the Internet and privacy laws and

Michael C. Cannata has issued an Intellectual Property Law Bulletin. We hope you find the Bulletin useful and interesting. We invite your suggestions. The Bulletin is not legal advice.

Recent Decisions by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

The U.S. Supreme Court has ventured into the world of violent online speech. On June 1, in Elonis v. United States,1 the court overturned a defendant’s criminal conviction for communicating threats on Facebook. The court ruled that a mens rea standard of negligence was insufficient to allow the conviction to stand, but it did not

New Jersey legislators advanced a bill to expand notification requirements in the event of a data breach affecting New Jersey residents. The bill, Assembly No. 3146, passed on December 15, 2014, by a vote of 75–0 and was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee where it has not yet been addressed. The Assembly bill seeks