Lewis Roca Blog

The United States Patent & Trademark Office has enacted a Final Rule that will increase the
fees for filing trademark applications, maintaining trademark registrations and filing
oppositions and cancellations before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, effective
January 2, 2021.

Can a generic word combined with “.com” ever be eligible for trademark protection in the United States? Yes, under the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision in United States Patent And Trademark Office v. Booking.com  B.V., issued today.

Businesses small and large have been impacted in myriad ways by the COVID-19 crisis but some businesses have responded by reinventing themselves by making products or providing services to meet the new demands of COVID-19.

The USPTO has twice announced extensions of certain trademark and patent deadlines in accordance with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The most recent extensions will lapse on May 31, 2020, but the USPTO will continue to offer some relief.

The USPTO has announced extensions of certain patent and trademark deadlines in accordance with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Under some conditions, discussed below, deadlines for filing certain patent and trademark related documents and paying certain required fees that would otherwise have been due between March 27 and May 31 may now be filed on or before June 1.

The USPTO, like many other trademark offices worldwide, has responded to the COVID-19 outbreak by offering extensions of time for certain deadlines related to trademark applications and registrations. A 30-day extension of time is now available.

On February 6, 2020, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published an Examination Guide announcing new rules scheduled to go into effect on February 15. Among the new rules, is a requirement that any trademark owner (e.g. applicant, registrant, or party to a litigation matter before the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board) provide a valid email address for correspondence, even if there is an appointed U.S. attorney.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now requires all foreign-domiciled trademark applicants and registrants to retain licensed counsel in the United States to prosecute trademark applications, file post-registration maintenance documents, file submissions in Madrid applications, or respond to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) new rule requiring foreign-domiciled trademark applicants, registrants, or trademark-proceeding parties to be represented by a U.S. attorney (84 FR 31498) took effect on August 3, 2019. The USPTO issued an accompanying initial Examination Guide in early August to help implement the rule. After taking into account responses …

The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) new rule requiring foreign-domiciled trademark applicants, registrants, or trademark-proceeding parties to be represented by a U.S. attorney (84 FR 31498) took effect on August 3, 2019. The USPTO issued an accompanying initial Examination Guide in early August to help implement the rule.

The United States, unlike many other countries, requires proof of use before a trademark registration will be granted.  Applicants can still file an application before use commences, provided that the applicant has a bona fide intent to use a mark, but the trademark registration still will not issue until acceptable use evidence is submitted. …

The impetus for the upcoming August 3, 2019 rule change requiring all foreign-domiciled trademark applicants and registrants to retain licensed counsel in the United States is an increase in foreign trademark applicants acting pro se and who are failing to comply with the rules of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)....

What exactly is an “immoral” or “scandalous” trademark, and should the government be the arbiter of making such a determination? In the second landmark trademark decision in two years, the Supreme Court invalidated the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks. Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. ___ (2019). The Court’s decision expands the …