Tagged: Trademark

Protecting Your Company – Trademark Basics You Need to Know

The Gibbons Women’s Initiative is hosting an upcoming program for in-house counsel entitled, “Protecting Your Company – Trademark Basics You Need to Know,” on Thursday, March 8 from 8:30 – 10:15 am at Gibbons Newark Office. This program will feature Catherine M. Clayton, a Director in the Gibbons Intellectual Property Department, who leads the firm’s trademark practice. Ms. Clayton has a broad range of experience in trademark and copyright law, and her practice encompasses litigation, licensing and prosecution.

The “Linsanity” Continues …..

The New York Knicks’ rising superstar point guard, Jeremy Lin, continues to wow fans around the world. Lin’s NBA ascent also has prompted a rush to the Trademark Office. Over 20 applications for word marks that bear the letters L-I-N already have been filed. These include LIN-SATIONAL; ALL LIN; LINSPIRATION; I’M A LINNER; LINSOMNIA: LINCREDIBLE; and other derivations using the star’s last name. The frenzy began with applications for the seemingly ubiquitous LINSANITY catch phrase, which were filed on February 7 and February 9, as the star’s career took off. Most of the applications to date have been filed on an intent to use basis, that is, the applicant has expressed a bona fide intent to use the mark in interstate commerce.

IP Law 2012: A Look Ahead . . . .

Coming off a year that included the Smith-Leahy “America Invents Act,” 2012 portends to have some significant developments in IP law. Decisions for IP practitioners and industry to watch for include: the Supreme Court’s decision in Caraco Pharm. Labs. Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, regarding “use codes” and section viii carve-outs under the Hatch-Waxman Act; the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo v. Prometheus, regarding patentable subject matter, post-Bilski; and the Federal Circuit’s upcoming en banc decisions in McKesson and Akamai, regarding joint infringement liability.

Coming Soon to New Jersey . . . Trade Secrets Law!

New Jersey, along with New York, Massachusetts and Texas, are the only states that have not adopted some form of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Not for much longer. Last week, the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act, A-921/S-2456 passed unanimously in the New Jersey Assembly, and is on its way to the Governor’s desk. Governor Christie will have 45 days to sign the measure into law. Once enacted, the law will be effective immediately, but will not apply retroactively.

ICANN and ICM Sued for Anti-Competitive Practices Relating to the Newly-Created .XXX Top Level Domain

The recent establishment of .XXX, a new Top-Level Domain Name (“TLD”) intended for adult-oriented content, has been met with some trepidation and sparked controversy from those within and outside of the adult-oriented industries. Although much has been made of the threat of .XXX cybersquatting relating to mainstream companies, institutions and brands, ironically, the first formal legal challenge to the .XXX TLD, comes from those within the adult industry.

In Defense of Color Trademarks: INTA Submits Amicus Brief in Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent

On Monday, the International Trademark Association (“INTA”) filed an amicus curae brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc.. In that brief, INTA argued that the lower court’s decision should be vacated and remanded on the basis that the court did not properly evaluate Louboutin’s federally registered trademark, failed to accord that mark the legal presumption of validity to which it is entitled under federal law, and did not use the appropriate test for aesthetic functionality.

Clock Ticking for Trademark Registrants Seeking to Block Registration of Their Marks on .XXX Domain

As has been widely reported by the mainstream press and most legal publications, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has approved a new “.XXX” top-level domain expected to be utilized by the adult entertainment industry. Given the connotation of the .XXX domain, companies and individuals around the globe are considering how best to protect their trademarks from the potential harms of registry misuse, including cyber squatters targeting this new domain to register well known trademarks. Although the creation of the .XXX domain will be a boon to those in the adult entertainment industry and domain registrars, it raises serious threats of infringement, brand dilution or tarnishing for trademarks uninvolved in those industries. If they have not already, all trademark owners should be considering the potential impact of the .XXX domain to their marks and determining whether to take the necessary steps to “opt-out” of .XXX domain registration by the October 28, 2011 deadline for doing so.

A Challenge to Color Trademarks in the Field of Fashion: Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent America

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s August 10, 2011 decision in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc., questions whether a single color may serve as a trademark for fashion. That case arises from an action for trademark infringement brought by luxury shoe designer, Christian Louboutin, against Yves Saint Laurent America (“YSL”). Louboutin is well-known for his collection of high end women’s shoes, which have bright red glossy soles. He also owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,361,597 for “a lacquered red sole on footwear.”

District Court Awards Tory Burch $164 Million in Anti-Counterfeiting Litigation

Tory Burch LLC (“Tory Burch”), the makers of women’s apparel, designer shoes and fashion accessories, recently obtained a $164 million damages award against forty-one defendants accused of selling counterfeit versions of its products through numerous websites. This decision confers the largest award ever granted to a fashion company in a counterfeiting action.

Revisions to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 – New Untested Protections for Testifying Experts

On December 1, 2010, the latest version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. As part of the new rules, significant changes were made to Rule 26 regarding the discovery of information from experts retained to provide testimony. As of Wednesday, witnesses who were not previously required to provide a written report must now provide a summary disclosure of their opinion. In addition, draft expert reports and some communications between expert witnesses and counsel will no longer be discoverable, and expert reports will now only need to contain information regarding “facts or data considered by the witness in forming” an opinion.