the Trademark Resource for Start-Ups, Business Owners, Marketing Professionals, In-House Counsel, and Attorneys

 

Lately, I've been noodling about how to become more productive. My law practice has become quite busy (with an honorable mention to my personal life). Unfortunately, this blog has been one of the casualties. Last year, blog posts were consistently published on a weekly basis. This year I have only published two posts to date ... how embarrassing. But it may all be worthwhile because something good is going to come out of the unexpected hiatus: a new blog series called The Productive Lawyer.

It dawned on me that Trademark Well does not necessarily need to be confined to posts on trademark law. An essential part of being a trademark lawyer is managing yourself and your practice, learning to be efficient and productive. Finding a way to get things done consistently. Consistency day after day will get you there. Like most people, I succumb to workload paralysis, procrastination, and bad work habits. To accomplish the goals I've set for Trademark Well, my law practice, and myself personally, I am going to need all the tips and tricks that I can get my hands on. I'll share the ones that are working for me in The Productive Lawyer blog post series.

Let the productivity begin with one of my favorite new productivity habits: Clear to Neutral.

continue reading→

Less than two weeks ago, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) issued its precedential decision in In re I-Coat Company, LLC. The case involved I-Coat’s appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) refusal to register its three trademark applications for INDIGO for corrective lenses based on a likelihood of confusion with Schwabe & Baer’s registered INDIGO and INDIGOSNOW trademarks for glasses and ski goggles. While the TTAB affirmed the USPTO’s § 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal, the decision is more important because the TTAB took the time to clarify the requirements for introducing and relying on Internet evidence during ex parte proceedings before the USPTO. continue reading→

Pending Trademark Applications & Litigation

It seems axiomatic that a federal district court has jurisdiction to decide whether a pending federal trademark application can be registered or not. Yet, the truth is a federal district court only has power over pending federal trademark applications under certain circumstances.

continue reading→

How a Consent Agreement Won Me a Case

In my last blog post, I discussed how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") has been dealing with trademark consent agreements. This post views consent agreements from a different perspective, a litigant's perspective. It's important to differentiate between these two different contexts. Remember, a trademark consent agreement is just a private contract. And while the USPTO may not be bound by that private contract when making likelihood of confusion determinations, the parties to that private contract are bound by it. To exemplify this difference, I am going to recount a case that I litigated for about two years, including a Ninth Circuit appeal, that was ultimately won based on a consent agreement that was assigned to my client. Once upon a time ...

continue reading→

Photo of ants on opposite sides of a bamboo stick

A consent agreement is exactly what it sounds like. It’s an agreement in which a party consents to the use and registration of the other party’s trademark. Usually, the agreement is bilateral with both parties consenting to the other’s use and registration.

Consent agreements are usually submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to overcome an office action refusing registration because of a § 2(d) likelihood of confusion with a prior registration or prior pending application. Most of the time, a consent agreement is sufficient to overcome a § 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal, but the USPTO is not obligated to withdraw the refusal.

continue reading→