Filewrapper-old

USPTO Cancels Washington, D.C. NFL Franchise's Trademark Registrations
June 19, 2014

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a decision yesterday cancelling six federal trademark registrations owned by the Washington, D.C. National Football League franchise. The cancellation proceeding was brought by five Native American petitioners on the basis that the marks disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). The Trademark Trial and....... Read More


    Who May Bring a Federal False Advertising Suit?
    April 02, 2014

      The Supreme Court's recent decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. prescribed the appropriate framework for determining whether a plaintiff has standing in a false advertising action under the 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). Prior to this decision, there were three competing approaches to determining whether a plaintiff has standing to bring suit under the Lanham Act: · ....... Read More


      New and Useful - January 23, 2013
      January 23, 2013

        · In Wax v. Amazon Techs., the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s denial of registration of the mark AMAZON VENTURES. Applicant filed and intent-to-use application to register the mark for “investment management, raising venture capital for others, . . . and capital investment consultation.” Amazon Technologies, Inc.—online retailer and owner of several AMAZON.COM marks&mdas....... Read More


        After-the-fact Patent Assignment Too Late to Save Jurisdiction
        November 24, 2010

          Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-siz....... Read More


          Federal Circuit again deals with standing
          March 02, 2007

            In yet another case, the Federal Circuit has dealt with whether a party asserting a patent infringement claim had title to the patent, and thus standing to bring the claim against the defendant. Here, once the standing issue was raised at the district court, the Plaintiff opted to fix the chain of title, voluntarily dismiss its claim, and refile a new case against the defendant. The court granted the dismissal (....... Read More


            Don't change horses in midstream: Patentee held to claim construction position taken at lower court
            February 20, 2007

              The Federal Circuit ruled today that a patentee could not argue a different claim construction than that argued before the district court. Because of this, the court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement against the patent holder. Also, the court held that the patent holder did have standing to bring the case. Issues relating to the chain of title of a patent are determined by ....... Read More


              Federal Circuit again dismisses patent case for lack of standing
              January 30, 2007

                The Federal Circuit has once again found the plaintiff in a patent infringement lawsuit did not have standing to bring its infringement claim. In order for a single plaintiff to have standing to assert infringement of a patent, that plaintiff must be the owner of the entire interest in the patent. As succinctly stated by the court: "Absent the voluntary joinder of all co-owners of the patent, a co-owner ac....... Read More


                "Bare Licensee" Lacks Standing to Sue for Infringement
                January 09, 2007

                  In Propat International Corp & David Find and Helene Glasser ("Propat") v. RPsot International Limted, Zafar Khan, Kenneth Barton and Terrance Tomkow ("Rpost"), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that Propat lacked standing to sue for infringement and, on the cross-appeal, affirmed the district court's order denying RPost's request for an award of fees and costs. At issue was a patent ("t....... Read More


                    Newer Posts Older Posts  

                  Purpose

                  The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

                  Disclaimer

                  McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

                  Connect with MVS

                  Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

                  Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

                  Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

                    I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.