Join Us! We’re Seeking an Experienced Trademark Prosecution Associate and Trademark Paralegal

Share

Intellectual Property – Trademark Prosecution Associate

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, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Washington D.C., San Francisco or Denver offices.

Continue reading

Trademark Modernization Act of 2020: Part 4

Share

The fourth blog post in our continuing series on The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA) comes on the heels of the July 19, 2021, deadline for the public to submit comments on the proposed rules. As discussed by our TCAM blog here, here, and here, the majority of the TMA is to take effect on December 27, 2021, with the flexible response period provisions following in 2022. This blog post highlights some of the proposed rules relating to attorney recognition, revocation, and withdrawal.

Continue reading

Trademark Modernization Act of 2020: Part 3

Share

The new ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings, introduced by the Trademark Modernization Act, are intended to be efficient ways of removing improper trademark registrations from the register.

But will expungement or reexamination always be the best strategy for challenging a trademark registration?

Continue reading

Trademark Modernization Act of 2020: Part 2

Share

Before a mark can become registered in the United States, a trademark applicant must usually provide evidence that its mark is in use. Furthermore, to maintain the trademark registration the registrant must periodically show it is still using the mark in commerce. Unfortunately, the federal trademark registers are cluttered with marks that are not actually in use, and which potentially block legitimate trademarks from becoming registered. To address these issues, Congress enacted The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA) as part of the coronavirus relief bill. See our discussion here. The TMA is to take effect on December 27, 2021, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published its proposed rules to implement provisions of the TMA on May 18, 2021. The USPTO is accepting comments about the proposed rules until July 19, 2021.

Some of the proposed new procedures to streamline the removal of unused trademarks from the register are discussed here. The TMA also provides for flexible office action response periods during the prosecution of a trademark application, which the USPTO expects to go into effect on June 27, 2022. Currently, if an office action issues during the examination of a trademark application, an applicant must file a response within six months. ‎The TMA, however, allows the Examiner to set a response period between 60 days and 6 months, with extensions available. For example, an Examiner may set a shortened period to respond to formalities such as amendments to identifications of goods and services or mark descriptions. To respond, however, to a more complex issue such as a likelihood of confusion refusal, an Examiner may set a longer response period to allow an applicant to investigate and gather evidence.

Continue reading

Trademark Modernization Act of 2020: Part 1

Share

The Nuts and Bolts of Expungement and Reexamination

You may remember our blog post here, discussing the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020, which became law at the end of last year.  To implement the Trademark Modernization Act, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed changes to the trademark rules of practice, which we begin to explore in the following post.  Over the coming weeks and months, stay tuned for further commentary, insights and practice tips on these proposed changes!

According to Commissioner for Trademarks David Gooder, during a recent USPTO virtual roundtable event, “protecting the integrity of the US trademark register is, and will remain for some time, one of our top priorities.”  Keeping the register clear of improperly obtained trademark registrations helps ensure that legitimate businesses can register their marks with the USPTO, and enforce those rights against infringers.

Continue reading

USPTO Embracing New Possibilities with AI

Share

While the legal industry is typically not known as being cutting edge when it comes to adopting innovative technologies, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is taking big steps forward on seeing whether artificial intelligence (AI) may be used during patent and trademark examination to create greater efficiency and consistency with respect to certain routine, high-volume tasks. AI, a technology that refers to “smart” machines that simulate human intelligence, is being examined in many industries to potentially eliminate redundant and routine tasks, and the USPTO is trying to determine whether AI is right for it. Does this mean that future USPTO examiners will be more like C3PO? No. But AI could handle more-routine tasks, which would allow examiners to focus on more-substantive matters related to the examination of trademark and patent filings.

Continue reading

Counterfeiting: Why Crime Doesn’t Pay

Share

Based on a recent restitution submission prepared by Faegre Drinker, a federal judge in Harrisburg, Pa. awarded Eli Lilly and Company $1.9 million in restitution from an individual convicted of trafficking in drugs bearing counterfeit trademarks of Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies. The defendant in this matter was sentenced to 70 months in prison and ordered to pay $3.6 million in restitution, the remainder split between the other companies based on the defendant’s conduct involving their trademarks.  In this instance, crime clearly didn’t pay for the defendant and success was achieved by partnering with our client to fight counterfeiting and illegal importing.  So how does this work?

Continue reading

Cross-Class Confusion: Your Rights are Stronger than You Might Think!

Share

You’ve done the work of securing a federal trademark registration and now face the matter of enforcement against a potential infringer. Are the classes and goods specified in that registration now a double-edged sword?

Say your business, Company A, sells a premium line of clothing for chefs, widely recognized in the restaurant industry for both its durability and stylish design. You’ve worked hard to build the brand and made sure to protect its reputation by registering Company A’s trademarks with the USPTO—in particular, Class 25 for clothing. Much to your dismay, however, a customer has brought to your attention Company B’s new line of kitchen utensils that uses a conspicuously similar name and logo. While initially sold at retail outlets, this new line of cutlery has grown in popularity with some of the nation’s top restaurants. When you reach out to Company B for an explanation, they direct you to your own now-glaring lack of any registration for goods in Class 21 for household utensils. Your brand, despite taking the cooking world by storm, is not quite famous enough to pursue a dilution claim. Are you out of luck in pursuing a claim for infringement?

Continue reading

Someone Else’s Trademark in Your Way? Just Buy It.

Share

Sometimes the quickest way out of something is straight through it. This advice holds true in life, and in trademarks.

Those who deal with trademarks are familiar with obstacles to registration based on similar third-party marks. It’s frustrating, and especially so if you had conducted a clearance search beforehand in an effort to avoid such obstacles and see no reasonable basis for the Trademark Office’s refusal. Other times, the Trademark Office may approve your application for publication, but a third party will oppose registration during the opposition period. Or maybe you haven’t even applied for registration in the Trademark Office, but you receive a letter threatening legal action if you do not cease and desist from the use of your mark.

Continue reading

Rebranding Roadmap – A Checklist for Changing Brand Names and Company Names

Share

So you’re thinking about changing your company name, brand, or both.  We usually like to allow at least a few months to identify the new name and initiate protection.  To help you plan, here’s a high-level overview of significant steps in the process.  Happy rebranding!

Continue reading