Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

USPTO Proposes Rulemaking to Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020

May 24 2021

On 18 May 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA). The USPTO proposed to amend the rules to implement certain provisions of the TMA, as detailed below. The proposed new and amended rules:

establish procedures and fees for ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings
provide nonuse grounds for cancellation before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)
establish flexible office action response periods, and
amend the existing letter-of-protest rule to indicate that letter-of-protest determinations are final and nonreviewable.

Amendments are also proposed for the rules concerning the suspension of USPTO proceedings and rules governing attorney recognition in trademark matters. Finally, a new rule is proposed to address procedures regarding court orders cancelling or affecting registrations. The USPTO must receive written comments regarding these proposed rules on or before 19 July 2021.

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Booking.com to Trademark Its Domain Name

Jun 30 2020

On June 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. ___ (2020) that “Booking.com” is eligible for trademark registration because consumers do not perceive “Booking.com” as a generic name.[1] The 8-1 decision written by Justice Ginsburg rejected the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s argument that when a generic term is combined with a generic Internet-domain-name suffix like “.com,” the resulting combination is necessarily generic, noting that such an unyielding legal rule that entirely disregards consumer perception is incompatible with the Lanham Act.

COVID-19: USPTO further extends certain filing and payment deadlines to June 1, 2020 for those affected by COVID-19 outbreak

Apr 29 2020

In a Notice issued April 28, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) further extended certain filing and payment deadlines to June 1, 2020, provided that the filing is accompanied by a statement that the delay in filing or payment was due to the COVID-19 outbreak. This Notice supersedes the prior March 31, 2020 Notice that offered 30-day extensions to certain deadlines through April 30, 2020.

COVID-19: USPTO Offers 30-Day Extension of Filing and Payment Deadlines to Those Affected by COVID-19 Outbreak

Apr 01 2020

In a Notice issued March 31, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) extended certain filing and payment deadlines due between March 27, 2020, and April 30, 2020, by 30 days from the initial due date, provided that the filing is accompanied by a statement that the delay was due to the COVID-19 outbreak. The USPTO’s authority to offer this extension was part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), signed into law on March 26, 2020.

United States Supreme Court Holds That Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Determination of Likelihood of Confusion May Bind Subsequent Court Infringement Case

Mar 26 2015

On March 24, 2015, in a case covered here in a previous posting (On Tap at the U.S. Supreme Court: An Important Trademark Case, September 3, 2014), the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) held that a determination of likelihood of confusion by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), in an administrative tribunal which determines registerability, may preclude further litigation of the issue in a subsequent infringement case. In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had determined that a TTAB finding would not bind an infringement court because, among other reasons, the factors considered by the TTAB were not identical to those considered by the trial court. The Supreme Court, though, by a 7-2 vote, held that when the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met and where the issues in the two cases are identical, the ruling by the agency tribunal controls. The Supreme Court also found that even though the specific factors considered in a likelihood of confusion analysis may vary somewhat, they are not ‘fundamentally different’ and that the ‘likelihood of confusion’ standard is the same for registration and infringement purposes.

Tag:Trademark Trial and Appeal Board