Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Combinations and Components: Determining Similarity in TTAB Proceedings
In determining whether competitors' trademarks are confusingly similar, some of the most vexing issues involve comparisons between marks that contain multiple terms or components, and comparisons between multiple marks. A pair of recent decisions by the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ('TTAB') clarifies how these issues should be approached. In Schering-Plough HealthCare Products, Inc. v. Huang, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 67 (TTAB June 18, 2007), the TTAB synthesized various precedents governing challenges to a trademark application based on combinations of separately registered marks. In China Healthways Institute, Inc. v. Wang, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14815 (Fed. Cir. June 22, 2007), the Federal Circuit clarified the antidissection rule governing marks with multiple components.
Combination Claims
In 1944, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals ('CCPA') opened the door to opposing a trademark application based on multiple separately registered marks. See Parke, Davis & Co. v. G.F. Harvey Co., 141 F.2d 132 (CCPA 1944). In Parke, Davis, the CCPA held that registration of 'DIGISEALS' for a digitalis preparation should be denied based on opposer's prior registrations of 'KAPSEALS' and 'DIGIFORTIS' for the same goods. Other than referring to 'KAPSEALS DIGIFORTIS' as a 'compound mark,' the CCPA's decision shed no light on the circumstances in which such a combination claim may be considered. Indeed, the sole rationale articulated for considering opposer's marks conjointly was that applicant's use of syllables from each of opposer's marks could be explained only by applicant's intent to profit from consumer confusion. Id. at 134.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?