Catching up with TTAB cases
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Catching up with TTAB cases

john-welch-web.jpg

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has seen a slew of unusual cases this year, according to John Welch, an attorney with Wolf Greenfield

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has seen a slew of unusual cases this year. John Welch, an attorney with Wolf Greenfield in Boston who writes about the TTAB on his appropriately named site The TTABlog, will this afternoon at the AIPLA Annual Meeting discuss a number of interesting and precedential cases, from motion to marijuana and fire power to fraud.

john-welch-web.jpg

In the In re Loggerhead Tools decision the TTAB upheld the denial of Loggerhead's attempt to register a trademark for the motion of the jaws of a wrench or crimper opening and closing. Loggerhead tried a number of novel arguments about its design patents, but ultimately these failed the Board's four-part Morton-Norwich test. "The Board said, 'Sorry, there's a patent on this," says Welch, "this is a function of a device, and a trademark can't be for something that's functional." Welch will delve more deeply into the intricate crossovers of design and utility patents and trademarks at play in the case.

As marijuana becomes legal or decriminalized in an increasing number of states, the issue is drifting into the TTAB too. But applicants for marijuana-related marks face sticky issues when trying to register nationally-recognized marks for marijuana because the product is still illegal in most states. That leaves the booming marijuana industry to either attempt to circumvent Trademark Act provisions, or "would leave them to get state registrations, but in states where they can't get a Federal registration," says Welch.

Some surprising registrations have survived the TTAB this year too, such as a color mark for "white" for "preformed gunpowder charges for muzzleloading firearms" in the In re Hodgdon Powder Company decision. As Welch comments on his blog, "I can't remember the last time that a single-color mark passed muster at the TTAB." As if that weren't novel enough, the color wasn't even a true color and the product is another subject of legal contention. Welch will explain how a trademark for a single color could be issued on the grounds of being an anomaly.

Welch will also discuss a fraud case handed down from the TTAB in September. Since the laws governing fraud in the TTAB were changed in 2009 (following In re: Bose), only once such case has been upheld by the TTAB. This case, involving an auto dealer, was no exception to the rule that "it's still very hard to prove fraud," as Welch says, and the details of the case that he will unpack will demonstrate why.

The TTAB this month published a notice of final rule making of its "Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules of Practice."

The amended rules require all plaintiffs to file complaints through the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals, with the exception of ex parte appeals. The Board also shifted the responsibility for serving the defendant with a complaint back from the plaintiff to the Board itself. Now, however, this service, as well as all other correspondences and stipulations, will be done online, through email or online links, and not through mail.

The new rules require all discovery to be served in time so that the responses are submitted before the discovery period is over. This deprives practitioners of a tactical tool, but it is hoped that the discovery period will be prevented from bleeding over into the testimony period, which "kind of screws up everything and causes delays," says Welch. In the final rule, parties are limited to 75 requests for admissions and document production and all discovery must be done in a six-month discovery period.

The amendments also allow plaintiffs to submit a declaration or affidavit for their testimonies. "Once you get this sort of canned declaration, you can use it over and over again," says Welch, "so you don't have to go through the rigmarole of live testimony every time."

The amendments are meant to streamline and make TTAB proceedings more efficient, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will move any faster. The new rules are "more efficient in the sense that less effort has to go into it to get through the hoops," says Welch. "But it's still the same hoops, more or less, in the same order, with the same timing."



more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Gift this article