In a six-page decision, the Board affirmed a Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register the mark LYNKD, finding it merely descriptive of electronic monitoring and safety devices controllable by mobile phone, and related software.

The Board affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal of FREESTYLE for "comforters, namely, comforters and comforter sets and comforter sets sold in a bag," finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the identical mark...

In the Matter of CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS THEREOF (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-1093, Initial Determination and Recommended Remedy (March 26, 2019)

The Board denied a petition to cancel the mark shown below for various clothing items because Petitioner Dr. Martens failed to prove its standing. Petitioner claimed, inter alia....

First, the Federal Circuit reviews the TTAB's decisions on appeal, asking, essentially, whether the TTAB was correct.

This case provides an important reminder to practitioners: consider arguments and statements carefully in light of any and all possible rejections.

On March 31, 2020, the USPTO announced the availability of 30-day extensions of time for filing certain patent- and trademark-related documents and for paying certain required fees.

Per the express language of 35 U.S.C. § 311, a petitioner in an IPR may request cancellation of a claim "only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103."

Here's a 2017 ruling that slipped under the TTABLog radar. In this precedential order, the Board denied an FRCP 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, directed at applicant's counterclaims...

In a nonprecedential per curiam opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's decision...

The Board sustained an opposition to registration of the mark shown below, for "Beer-based cocktails; Essences used in the preparation of liqueurs; Malt extracts for making beer; Non-alcoholic...

I will not make any references to the recent demise of the Houston Rockets.

As we discussed in May, PTAB decisions are a primary source for guidance regarding what constitutes a "printed publication" under § 102, because the PTAB faces the issue so frequently.

Photonics is rapidly evolving from an academic discipline into a major industrial force, requiring companies to strategically manage their intellectual property. This discussion explores how photonics companies can leverage thoughtful patenting, trade secret protection, and litigation readiness to succeed in this competitive and fast-moving field.

The Board affirmed a refusal to register the mark THERAFIT for "bed sheets," agreeing with Examining Attorney David I that applicant's specimen

[This guest post was authored by John L. Strand, Shareholder in the Trademark and Litigation Groups at Wolf Greenfield.]

The September-October issue of The Trademark Reporter [pdf of full issue here] includes Daniel R. Bereskin's article on Trademark Rights ...

The TTAB recently ruled on the appeals from the three Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusals summarized below. Let's see how you do with them. Answer will be found in the first comment.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion on remand in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., holding that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA)...

Okay, all you pet lovers, sink your teeth into this one.