USPTO Patent and Trademark Fee Increases
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced increased patent and trademark fees effective 19 and 18 January 2025, respectively.
Read MoreSkyKick v Sky: A Debrief of the Latest Developments
The UK Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in the long-running SkyKick v Sky trade mark battle. The court considered the key issue of ‘bad faith’ applied to the over-claiming practice and its implications for trade mark infringement matters.
Read MoreRegistering NFTs and Virtual Goods in the UK
As we learned to appreciate over the past year or so, virtual goods are intangible assets that can be traded within a virtual economy, worth whatever participants in the virtual market are willing to pay for them. Though a type of virtual good, NFTs have their own unique definition, which can now be found in the Cambridge Dictionary:
An NFT is a unique unit of data (the only one existing of its type) that links to a particular piece of digital art, music, video etc. and that can be bought and sold.
Read MoreU.S. Supreme Court Vacates Dog Toy Company’s Win in Jack Daniel’s Parody Trademark Dispute
By David J. Byer and Eric W. Lee
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held on June 8, 2023, that a dog toy company’s “parody” chew toy that mimics Jack Daniel’s widely recognized whiskey bottle does not escape trademark liability merely because the toy has “expressive content” or because it parodies Jack Daniel’s. Justice Kagan delivered the narrow opinion, writing that because the dog toy company, VIP Products LLC (“VIP”), used Jack Daniel’s trademarks as a designation of source for VIP’s own goods – i.e. using another’s trademark as a trademark – there is no special threshold First Amendment inquiry. The Supreme Court vacated the prior Ninth Circuit opinion that VIP’s use was protected under the First Amendment and the so-called Rogers test for “expressive” works, and remanded for consideration of whether VIP’s use is likely to cause consumer confusion. The Supreme Court expressly did not evaluate whether or how the well-known Rogers test may or may not apply in other contexts. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. ___ (2023).
Read MoreProposed PTAB Rules up for Comment
The USPTO on April 21, 2023 proposed a variety of changes to the pre-institution requirements and briefing process for post-grant proceedings, including both IPRs and PGRs. Among the proposed changes are broad amendments to the discretionary denial frameworks, which are intended to provide clarity, curb abusive litigation tactics, and generally align procedure with the objectives of the AIA. The deadline for submitting comments and suggestions related to these rules is June 20, 2023. The proposed rules provide valuable insight into the future of post-grant proceedings before the PTAB. An overview of these changes is outlined below, and additional details follow.
- Parallel Proceedings – The USPTO is considering changes to the Fintiv framework, including the elimination of current factors 1, 2, and 5, a requirement for a Sotera stipulation, and a grace period that would exempt petitions filed within 6 months of service of the complaint from being discretionarily denied under this rule.
- 325(d) Framework – The USPTO is considering a rule that would reign in the application of discretionary denial under 325(d) by limiting its application to art or arguments that had been “previously addressed,” or actually evaluated by the patent office as articulated on the record, such as in a rejection, notice of allowance, or examiner interview. Mere citation in an IDS will no longer meet the standard. Prior art will only be considered “substantially the same” where it contains the same teaching relied upon in the petition, and that teaching was addressed by the patent office.
- Serial Petitions – The USPTO is considering replacing the existing framework for serial petitions with a rule that will deny any serial or follow-on IPR petition filed by: (1) the same petitioner; (2) a real party in interest to that petitioner; (3) a party with a significant relationship to that petitioner; or (4) a party who previously joined an instituted IPR filed by that petitioner. There will be an exception where the earlier petition was not resolved on the merits of the petition, or where exceptional circumstances are shown.
- Prior Adjudications – The USPTO is contemplating stricter requirements where a prior final adjudication by a district court or in a post-grant proceeding upheld the validity of claims that substantially overlap the challenged claims, essentially requiring the petitioner (1) either has standing to challenge the validity of the patent in district court or intends to pursue commercialization, (2) was not a real party in interest to the party who unsuccessfully challenged the claims, and (3) meets the heightened burden of compelling merits.
- Micro and Small Entities – The USPTO is mulling changes that would protect under-resourced entities by denying institution where the patent owner (1) claimed micro or small entity status at the time of filing; (2) did not exceed a gross income cap in the calendar year preceding filing of the petition; and (3) was commercializing a product covered by the challenged claim at the time of filing.
- For-Profit Entities – The USPTO is contemplating a rule that would deny any IPR or PGR petition by a for-profit entity that has not been sued or threatened with infringement of the challenged patent, is not otherwise practicing in the field of the challenged patent, and is not in “substantial relationship” with an entity to which the rule would not apply.
The USPTO has also proposed changes to the disclosure requirements, what constitutes compelling merits, and termination by settlement filing requirements. An in-depth discussion of each suggested change is included below.
Read MoreNothing more than Empty Words: The Difficulty with Registering Slogans as Trade Marks in the EU
Companies continue to face difficulties in achieving EU trade mark protection for their slogans. In separate recent decisions of the EU General Court, two trade mark applications relating to advertising slogans were rejected on the grounds that the marks lacked the ‘distinctive character’ required to be registerable under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. These two decisions join a long list of case law rejecting similar applications.
Read MoreSome (General Court) Decisions Put a SMILE on Your Face
We are used to decisions about non-traditional trade marks not deserving protection in the European Union, leading to the inevitable conclusion that non-traditional trade marks can be difficult to register and keep on the register.
The recent McCain decision of the EU General Court seems to go into the opposite direction, providing some guidance on which proof of use will be sufficient for a non-traditional trade mark to stay on the EU register (see here).
Read MoreIf You Want It, You Should Have Done a Search On It: Why Trademark Searches are Essential Before Settling Down With a New Brand
Have you chosen a brand only to learn months later that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is refusing to register it due to someone else’s prior trademark registration or pending application? The USPTO’s most recent Q4 2022 data indicates that it takes 8 months or more for a trademark application to be reviewed—and ideally approved—by an examiner. Given that prolonged timeline, any issues with the application, such as a similar third-party mark that could prevent your own registration, may not surface until you or your company has already invested heavily in the mark.
This raises the question: what can be done for brands eager to launch but that want some measure of comfort that their trademark will be valid?
The answer: Searching.
Read MoreThe ‘Standard’ of Use Evidence in the EU – Advertising and Promotion Can be Enough to Show Genuine Use of a Service Without That Service Actually Crossing the Pond
Does evidence showing booking, advertising and selling services in the EU constitute genuine use if the service actually registered takes place abroad?
This was the question contemplated by a recent decision of the General Court. The case T-768/20 (Standard International Management LLC v EUIPO) addresses the use of trade marks in the EU where the relevant brand operates hotel and leisure facilities outside the jurisdiction.
Read MoreThe Battle of the Supermarkets – Evergreening of Trade Marks and Potential Bad Faith
Two well-known grocery stores, Tesco and Lidl, are involved in an ongoing trade mark dispute (Lidl Great Britain Limited v Tesco Stores Limited [2022] EWHC 1434 (Ch)). While the trial is set to take place in 2023, the recent developments in relation to arguments of bad faith are noteworthy, especially for brands engaged in trade mark refiling, or ‘evergreening’.
Read More