The Faegre Drinker Trademark, Copyright, Advertising and Media (T-CAM) Team is seeking an experienced trademark prosecution attorney for our thriving Intellectual Property practice. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP is an Am Law 50 firm with offices located throughout the U.S., Europe, and China. This position offers the opportunity to play a key role in growing our existing trademark, copyright, and advertising practice in our Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, San Francisco, or Washington, D.C. office.
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Faegre Drinker) launched global operations on February 1, 2020. Faegre Drinker is the combination of Faegre Baker Daniels, an international law firm with deep roots in the Midwest, and Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, a full-service national law firm with storied East Coast origins.
With more than 1,300 attorneys, consultants and professionals in 22 locations across the U.S., U.K. and China, Faegre Drinker is one of the nation’s 50 largest law firms based on size and projected gross revenue.
We are very excited to introduce TCAMToday, Faegre Drinker’s successor to the DB®anding Blog. Our newly expanded team of over 30 T-CAM professionals will continue to provide fresh commentary on Trademark, Copyright, Advertising and Media topics ranging from anticounterfeiting to sweepstakes and promotions. Watch this space!
As a trademark attorney, devoted Baltimore Ravens fan, and furtive TMZ reader, I couldn’t help but notice this story authored recently, describing how Mark Ingram’s aspirations of registering BIG TRUSS in the US Trademark Office are (potentially) being blocked by someone who applied to register the phrase first.
For those uninitiated, “Big Truss” is the pet name for Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson, coined by Mark Ingram, Ravens running back. Mark and Lamar’s well-documented bromance is one for the ages. The phrase first captured public attention when Mark Ingram uttered it in a November 21, 2019 press conference, although the origins of “Truss” appear to date back much further, to a 1991 album by Public Enemy, as this fascinating Baltimore Sun article explains. The BIG TRUSS application blocking Mr. Ingram’s attempts to register the phrase was filed on December 13, 2019 – 3 weeks after the aforementioned press conference, and candidly, a lifetime in the trademark world.
Wondering why you haven’t received any updates on the progress of your client’s Madrid Protocol application designating Canada? After reading that question, are you wondering what on earth a Madrid Protocol application is?
Let’s take a step back. The Madrid system is a mechanism that facilitates the registration of trademarks in multiple jurisdictions around the world. One way to file trademark applications in multiple jurisdictions is to engage local counsel in each jurisdiction of interest and work with counsel to file individual applications. By using the Madrid system, however, a trademark owner can file a single international trademark application with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and designate one or more jurisdictions based on just this one application.
In our recent post, we discussed the Seven Secrets of Security Interests relevant for owners or buyers of intellectual property. But after an IP owner grants a security interest in intellectual property, how do you make it official?
Welcome to the mysterious world known as perfection. That’s a fancy word for filing the right documents with the correct organizations so everyone knows that the lender has that security interest in intellectual property – and to make sure that the lender has priority over other parties who might have a future interest in the IP.
On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc. et al., agreeing to weigh in on the question of whether plaintiffs in trademark infringement cases must demonstrate that defendants acted willfully in order for plaintiffs to receive a portion of defendants’ profits.
Whether willfulness is a prerequisite to an award of defendants’ profits in trademark infringement cases is a question that has deeply divided the U.S. circuit courts. Half of the circuits have answered the question in the affirmative. The other half have answered the question in the negative. These latter circuits that do not require a threshold showing of willfulness merely view willfulness as one of many factors considered in fashioning an equitable remedy.
We recently shared our Seven Secrets of Security Interests with some tips about security interests in IP registered in the U.S. But often, U.S. IP goes hand-in-hand with trademarks, patents, and copyrights registered in Canada. Should security interests against Canadian IP be treated the same as in the U.S.?
We asked our colleague Silvia de Sousa from Thompson Dorfman Sweatman LLP in Winnipeg, Manitoba to describe the basics of security interests involving Canadian trademarks (as well as patents and copyrights). Silvia’s answers appear below. Enjoy!
If you own a U.S. trademark registration, chances are you’ve received official-looking solicitations offering to handle trademark services on your behalf in return for a fee. Read these notices carefully – more often than not, they don’t come from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Instead, they’re sent by private companies that have obtained your contact information from the publicly accessible USPTO trademark database. Worse than that, these notices may ask trademark owners to pay thousands of dollars in fees in exchange for services that aren’t even timely or necessary.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Iancu v. Brunetti will likely not be the last word on the subject of scandalous trademarks being granted registration. That certainly suggests there is room for further interpretation in the future, especially if Congress elects to amend the Lanham Act. Further, four Justices voiced some degree of concern about scandalous marks being granted registration.
This month’s dramatic announcement by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that all foreign domiciled trademark applicants, registrants and parties to USPTO trademark proceedings will now be required to retain U.S. counsel is expected to result in the most significant practical change to domestic trademark prosecution practice in years.
For casual observers, this new rule — set to be effective on Aug. 3, 2019 — may have arrived as an unexpected, or even shocking, development. After all, with this announcement, literally tens of thousands of active, foreign-domiciled participants in the trademark processes of the USPTO will suddenly now require representation by a U.S. attorney, altering years of common practice.
Moreover, the time from announcement to implementation — only 32 days — is remarkably short for agency action of any kind, let alone a new rule set to transform the role of trademark practitioners in relation to a massive class of new clients.