Board upholds PlayCore's standing in counterclaim to cancel, after Delaware Quarries loses opposition to mark on grounds of confusion

As readers may already appreciate, to prove trademark infringement, a plaintiff has to meet two equally important requirements.

The ramifications of the copyright infringement battle between tech heavyweights Oracle and Google concerning APIs are significant for software entrepreneurs, says Brinks' Michael Hussey in his recent article for TechCrunch.com.

With media coverage playing such a large role in consumers' understanding of brands, do geographic limitations really work to avoid consumer confusion, or are they outmoded?

A spate of recent lawsuits has left companies questioning the difference between commercial and non-commercial speech. Several highlight the dangers of stepping out of legal boundaries, wittingly or no, when engaged in commercializing businesses using advertising and social media.

When it comes to trademark registration, the important question is not how readily a mark will be noticed. It's whether, when noticed, the mark will be understood by the customer as indicating the source of the goods.

Ryan L. Marshall wrote, "Patent Law 112: How Do You Describe an Invention in a Patent Application?" for The Cosmetic Summit Intermountain West Society of Cosmetic Chemists Newsletter, Summer 2013.

Jerome Gilson and Anne Gilson LaLonde’s recent LexisNexis article "Proving Ownership Online ... And Keeping It: The Internet’s Impact on Trademark Use and Coexistence," was published in The Trademark Reporter.

Scott Slavick wrote, "IP: There's no papering over this dispute: Three-party wrangle over use of "paper".

Steve Shurtz discusses the importance of patent marking and changes to patent marking law under AIA that took effect on September 16, 2011.

On July 16, 2012, the Third Circuit issued a key ruling in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation regarding so-called "reverse payment" settlement agreements, which are not uncommon in the pharmaceutical industry.

Jerome Gilson and Anne Gilson LaLonde penned "Proving Ownership Online…And Keeping It: The Internet's Impact on Trademark Use and Coexistence," for LexisNexis.

"What is being offered for sale?" is the fundamental question the TTAB asks in determining whether subject matter is "goods in trade" and is therefore eligible for trademark protection.

Brinks attorneys Nicholas G. de la Torre and Jennifer J. Theis contributed the Unites States chapter for Pharmaceutical Trademarks 2013/2014: A Global Guide.

On May 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. regarding the doctrine of patent exhaustion.

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, et. al. (11th Cir.).

On March 1, 2016, the Federal Circuit, in Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. (Appeal Nos. 15-1391, -1393, and -1394), ruled that a document posted on a webpage did not qualify as prior art under the printed publication provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Everyone in the IP community wonders if President Donald Trump will create a new order in the IP field much the same way he has approached other areas of the government.

Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(a), the PTAB may impose sanctions against a party for "misconduct," including "[f]ailure to comply with an applicable rule or order in the proceeding,"...

On June 13, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") issued first ever final written decisions out of post grant review proceedings.