Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has routinely invalidated trademark registrations based on findings of fraud following its decision in 2003 in Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, Inc. The Board's fraud standard does not require proof of scienter or intent to defraud, but rather a mere showing that the applicant knew, or should have known, that certain statements made in trademark applications or renewal declarations were inaccurate. This standard has been challenged in several appeals now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition, the Board recently clarified how the Medinol fraud standard applies to multi-class applications. This article considers these recent developments and offers practice tips in light of the decisions discussed.
The Medinol Case
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.