Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Trademark Board's Precedential Ruling on Use in Commerce
In a nearly 50-page precedential opinion, a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) panel of judges recently underscored the need to prove actual use in commerce in order to register a trademark, regardless of how low the standard for use under the Lanham Act has recently become. In ruling also of great significance to the entertainment industry, the TTAB panel ordered cancellation of a registration for TAO VODKA for alcoholic beverages, excluding beer, because the registrant had not used the trademark in commerce as of the filing of its declaration of use, and the trademark was likely to cause confusion with the registered mark TAO for restaurants and nightclubs, which the TTAB held is famous. Tao Licensing LLC v. Bender Consulting d/b/a Asia Pacific Beverages, 92057132 (TTAB 2017).
In reaching this decision, the TTAB distinguished a series of recent rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit that apparently curtailed the need for significant evidence of use in commerce in board proceedings. In a 2016 ruling, the Federal Circuit had explained that even evidence of just one sale of two hats from a church gift shop could qualify as use in commerce under the Lanham Act, where the in-store purchaser was apparently from out of state, although there was no evidence that the hats had ever left Illinois, where the store was located. See, Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas AG, 841 F.3d 986 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, in a pair of separate rulings in 2015, the Federal Circuit held that Internet printouts and registrations of third-party marks alone — without any additional evidence of how the marks are actually used by those parties or the extent of such use — can be powerful evidence of a mark's weakness. Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. v. Millennium Sports S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Juice Generation Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?