Two key DuPont factors for likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act are the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks and the goods or services. Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the […]
Civil theft exists when the criminal state of mind—to permanently deprive the owner of the benefit of their property—exists. E.g., In re Est. of Chavez, 2022 COA 89M, ¶ 47 (Colo. App. Aug. 25, 2022). When a perpetrator takes money in an unauthorized manner, post-hoc characterizations, such as calling it “safe keeping,” do not exculpate […]
In Weisner v. Google LLC, No. 21-2228, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2022), the Federal Circuit held that method claims directed toward collecting information are abstract ideas, while method claims directed toward using the information are patent eligible. Weisner had sued Google for infringing a family of four patents, namely, U.S. Patent Nos. […]
Beginning on December 3, 2022, trademark applicants will have three months (with a possible three-month extension), instead of the current six months, to respond to office actions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during the examination and prosecution of the trademark application. The USPTO fee for requesting a three-month extension of […]
“Generally, where the matter sought to be registered identifies [services] that are a primary or central focus of the [business], we have considered the term to be generic.” In re Cordua Rests. LP, 100 USPQ2d 1227, 1231 (TTAB 2014) (citations omitted) (bracketed words in original), aff’d, 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2016); […]