By James Juo. A trademark application may be refused by the USPTO on the ground that the proposed mark is primarily geographically misdescriptive of the identified goods, under Section 2(e)(3) of the Trademark Act (the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 2(e)(3).[1] To support a Section 2(e)(3) misdescriptiveness refusal against a trademark application, the USPTO must prove […]
Blog
Discretion to Award Attorneys’ Fees for Inequitable Conduct
By James Juo. At the end of patent litigation, a district court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. If the district court find the case to be “exceptional,” then the district court exercises its discretion to determine whether to award attorney fees based on the […]
Stumped Anticipation for Design Patents
By James Juo. For purposes of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for patent validity with respect to utility patents and applications, “whether a reference is analogous art is irrelevant to whether that reference anticipates.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In Schreiber, a claim reciting a conical container top for […]
Incontestable Fraud on Trademark Office?
By James Juo. The bar for proving fraud on the Trademark Office in seeking to cancel a trademark registration is high. In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“there is no fraud if a false misrepresentation is occasioned by an honest misunderstanding or inadvertence without a willful intent to deceive”). In order […]
Colorado’s Fundamental Policy of Voiding Noncompetes
By James Juo. Colorado has a fundamental policy of voiding contractual noncompete provisions that do not fall within one of the statutory exceptions. Any covenant not to compete which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer shall be void unless that provision is […]