IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
US Court of Appeals
Subscribe to US Court of Appeals's Posts

Can’t patent idea of using asynchronous data streams during web conferencing

by | Feb 5, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement suit, holding that the asserted web conferencing claims were directed to an abstract idea, lacked any inventive concept, and were therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 24-1540 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2025) (Moore, CJ.; Hughes, Stoll, JJ.)

The patent owner accused Google of infringing a patent that describes systems for web conferencing that allow users to view and manipulate multiple data streams asynchronously, for example by reviewing earlier content while a live presentation continues. The representative claims recited client applications for presenting and observing participants, and some claims recited a server application and a “time scale modification component” to maintain audio quality at different playback speeds. Google moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were ineligible under Section 101. The district court agreed and denied leave to amend on the rationale of futility. The patent owner appealed.

Reviewing de novo, the Federal Circuit applied the two-step Alice framework. At step one, the Court concluded that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of allowing users to manipulate and review data streams in a web conferencing environment. The Court found that the claims recited desired results, such as asynchronous viewing, without explaining how those results were achieved or identifying any specific technological improvement. The patent owner argued that the claims were not result oriented because they recited two client applications, but the Court found that the claims still failed to describe any technical mechanism for performing the claimed functions.

The patent owner also pointed to alleged “functional claiming” in Google’s own patents, but the Federal Circuit noted that the eligibility of unrelated patents was irrelevant. The Court further rejected the notion that the mere existence of factually distinguishable Google-owned patents somehow amounted to a sweeping concession by Google that all patents involving functional claiming approaches were necessarily patent eligible.

Turning to step two, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claims lacked an inventive concept. The specification described the client applications and the time scale modification component as conventional components performing their ordinary functions. The patent owner largely repeated its step one arguments, which the Court found insufficient to supply an inventive concept.

Finally, the Federal Circuit rejected the patent owner’s argument that dismissal at the pleading stage was premature. Because the asserted patent was ineligible as a matter of law and the patent owner identified no factual allegations that could alter the Section 101 analysis, any amendment would have been futile.



read more

Case exterminated too soon: DTSA and CFAA claims survive

by | Feb 5, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit partially reversed and partially affirmed a series of district court rulings arising from alleged corporate espionage between competitors in the pest control industry. The decision clarifies the scope of recoverable “loss” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) after Van Buren and underscores that causation requirements under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and state trade secret law depend on the remedy sought. Moxie Pest Control LLC, et al. v. Kyle Nielsen, et al., Case No. 24-4076 (10th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026) (Hartz, Moritz, Rossman, JJ.)

Moxie sued rival Aptive Environmental, alleging that Aptive employees bribed current and former Moxie sales representatives to obtain confidential sales data stored in Moxie’s password-protected SalesRoutes system. According to Moxie, Aptive used this data (particularly sales leaderboards) to recruit door-to-door sales representatives by portraying Aptive as the more lucrative employer. Moxie brought claims under the CFAA, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, DTSA, and Utah’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA).

The district court dismissed Moxie’s CFAA claim at the pleading stage, denied motions to compel broad damages discovery, and granted Aptive summary judgment on the RICO, DTSA, and UTSA claims based on a lack of causation. Moxie appealed.

CFAA claim reinstated

The Tenth Circuit found that the district court erred in dismissing Moxie’s CFAA claim for failure to plead a qualifying “loss.” The district court had interpreted Van Buren v. United States as requiring plaintiffs to allege a technological harm, such as damage to data or systems, to recover under the CFAA. The Tenth Circuit rejected that interpretation, explaining that Van Buren addressed what conduct constitutes a CFAA violation, not the scope of recoverable loss once a violation has occurred.

Under the statute’s plain language, “loss” includes reasonable costs incurred in responding to an offense or conducting a damage assessment. Moxie’s allegations that it spent more than $5,000 investigating the unauthorized access (specifically identifying the perpetrators, methods, and scope of access) fell squarely within that definition. The Tenth Circuit emphasized that investigative costs aimed at understanding the breach itself are recoverable, even absent data corruption or system impairment.

Discovery rulings affirmed

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Moxie’s motions to compel expansive damages discovery. While acknowledging that some requested information could be relevant, the Court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion by limiting initial disclosures and inviting more targeted follow-up discovery. Moxie’s failure to pursue narrower discovery after the district court’s ruling weighed against a finding of abuse of discretion.

Trade secret and RICO claims

The Tenth Circuit agreed that Moxie failed to establish causation sufficient to sustain its RICO claim or to recover unjust-enrichment damages under the DTSA and UTSA. Evidence showing that Aptive sought Moxie’s data, used it in recruitment meetings, and experienced revenue growth during the same period amounted to correlation, not proof that the misappropriation caused Aptive’s profits. Without evidence tying the stolen data to actual financial gain, unjust-enrichment theories failed.

However, the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

IRPA claims accrue at first publication, not first discovery

by | Feb 5, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit confirmed that the single publication rule applies to claims brought under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA), 765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq. Giovannelli v. Walmart Inc., Case Nos. 24-2869; -3103; 25-1185; -1223 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2026) (Brennan, Scudder, Pryor, JJ.)

In 2009, US Army veteran Nicholas Giovannelli was unknowingly photographed while deployed in Afghanistan. The image was later posted on a US Department of Defense website, downloaded by Stocktrek Images, and then licensed and sold as posters on public retail websites, including Posterazzi, Walmart, Pixels, and a large e-commerce company. Giovannelli remained unaware of the photo’s commercial use until 2020, when a friend discovered the posters while searching for their unit number.

Giovannelli sued Walmart, Stocktrek, Pixels, the large e-commerce company, and Posterazzi under the IRPA, which prohibits the unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s name or likeness. After removal to federal court, the cases were severed to address misjoinder.

Under Illinois law, IRPA claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. The defendants argued that the claims were time barred under the single publication rule, which starts the limitations period at first publication, meaning Giovannelli would have needed to sue within one year of Pixels’ 2011 posting, Walmart’s 2016 posting, or the large e-commerce company’s 2018 posting. Giovannelli countered that the discovery rule should apply because the publications were “hidden” or “inherently undiscoverable,” asserting he had no reason to know of the posters until 2020. The district courts granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, applying the single-publication rule. Giovannelli appealed.

The Seventh Circuit, applying Illinois substantive law under diversity jurisdiction, made an “Erie guess” because the Supreme Court of Illinois has not addressed whether IRPA claims follow the single publication rule or the discovery rule. The Seventh Circuit looked to the 2006 Illinois Appellate Court decision in Blair v. Nevada Landing Partnership, which rejected the discovery rule in the IRPA context. Although Giovannelli argued that Blair’s discussion was dicta, the Seventh Circuit explained that dicta may still guide an Erie analysis. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment, finding that Illinois would apply the single publication rule to IRPA claims. The Court explained that the exception for hidden or inherently undiscoverable publications did not apply because the posters were available on public websites, and Giovannelli’s friend located them through a simple search using their unit number.



read more

Skinny label: Supreme Court to weigh inducement claims against generics

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether a generic drugmaker that fully carves out a patented use from its label can nonetheless be held liable for induced infringement based solely on marketing its product as a generic version of a branded drug and referencing public information about the branded product, without promoting the patented use.

In Amarin Pharma v. Hikma Pharmaceutical USA, Case No. 23-1169 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that Amarin adequately pleaded induced infringement based on allegations that Hikma marketed its product as a “generic” version of Vascepa and cited publicly available information about Vascepa, even though Hikma’s label carved out the patented indication pursuant to Section viii of the Hatch-Waxman Act.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, Hikma argued that the Federal Circuit’s ruling threatened the statutory balance struck by Hatch-Waxman by exposing skinny-label generic manufacturers to inducement liability based on conduct unrelated to the carved-out use. According to Hikma, permitting inducement claims under these circumstances would effectively nullify Hatch-Waxman Section viii by allowing plaintiffs to rely on generic marketing statements that do not instruct or encourage use of the patented method.

The questions presented are:

  • When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?
  • Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use?


read more

Hot out of the oven: Trademark limits on pizza-inspired names

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a preliminary injunction barring the use of PIZZA PUFF, concluding that the trademark owner failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because the term was likely generic and, in any event, was descriptively and fairly used. Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc., Case Nos. 24-3317; 25-1072; -1076; -1112 (7th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026) (Scudder, St. Eve, Jackson-Akiwumi, JJ.)

Illinois Tamale Company (Iltaco), a Chicago-based food company, has sold its signature “Pizza Puff” since 1976, distributing the product nationwide alongside other “Puff”-branded products. Iltaco owns federal trademark registrations for PIZZA PUFF (registered in 2009) and PUFF (registered in 2022).

In March 2024, Little Caesars introduced “Crazy Puffs,” small baked dough cups filled with pizza ingredients. The product launched as part of Little Caesars’ long-running “Crazy” line and was marketed prominently under the Little Caesars name, logo, and orange trade dress. Little Caesars secured its own federal registration for CRAZY PUFFS, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified no conflicting marks during examination.

Following the product launch, Iltaco sent a cease-and-desist letter claiming that CRAZY PUFFS and the phrase “4 Hand-Held Pizza Puffs” infringed its trademarks. When Little Caesars declined to change its marketing, Iltaco sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition and sought a preliminary injunction. The district court issued a split ruling, enjoining Little Caesars from using PIZZA PUFF but permitting continued use of CRAZY PUFFS and PUFF. Both parties appealed.

The Seventh Circuit found that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in assessing the protectability of PIZZA PUFF. The Court explained that rather than asking whether competitors could offer similar products without using the term, trademark protectability turns on the “primary significance” test, which is whether consumers primarily understand the term as a brand name or as the common name of a product. Because generic terms can never function as trademarks, the Court focused on evidence of consumer perception.

Applying that framework, the Seventh Circuit found substantial evidence that PIZZA PUFF was generic:

  • More than 80% of surveyed consumers viewed the term as referring to a product category rather than a brand.
  • Dictionary definitions treated the term generically.
  • Third-party filings and industry usage consistently employed the phrase as a common name.

This evidence rebutted the presumption of validity afforded by Iltaco’s federal registration, and Iltaco failed to demonstrate a likelihood of proving distinctiveness at trial. The Court therefore concluded that Iltaco did not show a likelihood of success on the merits and reversed the preliminary injunction barring Little Caesars’ use of PIZZA PUFF.

The Seventh Circuit further found that even if PIZZA PUFF were distinctive, Iltaco still could not obtain injunctive relief because Little Caesars was likely to prevail on a fair-use defense. The Court emphasized that fair use requires only descriptive, good-faith use, and not a perfect fit between the challenged term and the product. Here, PIZZA PUFF plausibly described Little Caesars’ light, pizza-filled food [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Baseball was very good to Roberto: Lanham Act permits claims against government officials in personal capacity

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

In a decision addressing the intersection of trademark law, sovereign immunity, and constitutional takings, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit partially revived Lanham Act claims brought by the heirs of baseball legend Roberto Clemente against senior officials of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. While affirming dismissal of claims against the Commonwealth itself and related public entities, the Court concluded that certain Lanham Act claims against individual government officials in their personal capacities were plausibly alleged and not barred by qualified immunity at the pleading stage. Clemente Props., Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia, Case No. 23-1922, 2026 WL 125574 (1st Cir. Jan. 16, 2026) (Barron, Lipez, Thompson, JJ.)

The plaintiffs, Clemente’s sons and affiliated entities, alleged that Commonwealth officials improperly used Clemente’s name and likeness on commemorative license plates and registration tags without authorization. Proceeds from the program were directed toward a public initiative intended to replace an earlier Clemente-founded project. Plaintiffs claimed trademark infringement, false endorsement, false advertising, and dilution under the Lanham Act, as well as a taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants moved to dismiss on immunity grounds and for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motions in full. Plaintiffs appealed.

The First Circuit reversed in part. The Court rejected the district court’s conclusion that the use of Clemente’s name and image was not “in connection with” goods or services under the Lanham Act. The Court explained that commemorative license plates and tags qualify as goods, and the fact that they were issued by a government entity did not remove them from the statute’s commercial scope. The Court also pointed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark ID Manual, which expressly recognizes license plates as registrable goods, and found no persuasive basis for excluding fundraising activities supporting the Roberto Clemente Sports District Fund from trademark scrutiny.

The First Circuit further concluded that plaintiffs adequately alleged commercial injury within the Lanham Act’s zone of interests and plausibly pleaded likelihood of confusion, including the mistaken impression that the Clemente family endorsed or financially benefited from the initiative. Accordingly, dismissal of Lanham Act claims under Section 32 (trademark infringement), Section 43(a) (false endorsement), and Section 43(c) (dilution) was improper with regard to officials sued in their personal capacities.

Sovereign immunity remained a shield for the Commonwealth, the Convention Center District Authority, and officials sued in their official capacities. However, the First Circuit concluded that qualified immunity did not bar the personal-capacity Lanham Act claims at the pleading stage and thus vacated dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the false advertising claim, determining that plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants’ statements constituted commercial advertising or promotion as required under Section 43(a)(1)(B). The Court also affirmed dismissal of the Takings Clause claim, concluding that alleged infringements of intangible intellectual property do not support a categorical physical-taking theory and cannot be analyzed using frameworks applicable to physical occupation or appropriation.

Finally, the First Circuit deemed waived any [...]

Continue Reading



read more

DMCA safe harbor is deep: Plaintiffs need to get specific

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for YouTube, finding that the company was protected by Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In doing so, the Court joined the Second and Ninth Circuits in requiring knowledge of specific infringing material, not generalized awareness of infringement on a platform, to defeat safe-harbor protection. Athos Overseas Ltd. Corp. v. YouTube, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-13156 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2026) (Pryor, Jordan, Marcus, JJ.)

Athos owns copyrights in classic Mexican and Latin American films and sued YouTube for hosting unauthorized uploads of its works. YouTube invoked the DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor, which shields service providers from liability for infringing material stored at the direction of users if certain statutory conditions are met. Athos did not dispute that YouTube expeditiously removed content identified in valid takedown notices. Instead, Athos argued that YouTube’s internal technologies provided it with actual or “red flag” knowledge of additional infringing copies beyond those specifically identified, and that YouTube’s content moderation and curation tools gave it the “right and ability to control” infringing activity.”

The Eleventh Circuit rejected both arguments. Echoing Viacom Int’l v. YouTube and UMG Recordings v. Shelter Cap. Partners, the Court explained that Section 512(c) requires knowledge of specific instances of infringement. A service provider’s duty to act arises only when it knows which particular material is infringing, because expeditious removal is possible only with such specificity. Since YouTube’s tools do not automatically identify legally infringing content, and because Athos provided no evidence that YouTube knew which specific videos were infringing, there was no triable issue on knowledge.

The Court rejected Athos’ argument that YouTube’s ability to recommend videos, remove content, or set platform policies constituted the type of control that strips safe-harbor protection. The DMCA requires “something more” than ordinary content moderation, such as substantial influence over or inducement of specific infringing activity. Because Athos failed to establish such control, the Eleventh Circuit did not reach the question of whether YouTube derived a direct financial benefit from infringement.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for YouTube, concluding that it remained entitled to Section 512(c) safe-harbor protection.



read more

Federal question? You can’t hypothetically fair use your way into federal court

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

Addressing the limits of federal jurisdiction, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the fair use exception in federal copyright law required disclosure of a student survey under Kentucky’s open records statute. The Court determined that neither the hypothetical presence of a federal fair use defense nor the possibility of future copyright litigation was sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction. Stovall v. Jefferson County Board of Education, Case No. 25-5357 (6th Cir. Jan. 14, 2026) (Sutton, Boggs, Bloomekatz, JJ.)

Miranda Stovall, a Kentucky resident, learned that Jefferson County Public Schools planned to administer a mental health survey to students. She requested a copy of the survey under the Kentucky Open Records Act. The school district denied the request, citing an exemption for records prohibited from disclosure by federal law and asserting that the survey was copyrighted intellectual property of its publisher, NCS Pearson.

Stovall sued in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that that disclosure of the survey would be permitted under the Copyright Act’s fair use doctrine. NCS Pearson moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the district court granted that motion. Stovall appealed.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying the established “arising under” framework used to assess federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1338. Under that framework, a claim may arise under federal copyright law only if:

  • It is created by the Copyright Act.
  • It is a state law claim that necessarily raises a disputed and substantial copyright issue.
  • It asserts rights equivalent to those protected by copyright and is therefore preempted.

The Court concluded that none of these categories applied.

First, the Copyright Act did not create Stovall’s cause of action; her asserted entitlement to inspect or copy the survey arose solely under the Kentucky Open Records Act.

Second, although copyright law was implicated, it entered the case only as a potential defense to the school district’s disclosure obligation. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that federal jurisdiction cannot be manufactured by anticipating a federal defense, even where the defense involves copyright fair use. Because federal copyright law was not an essential element of Stovall’s state law claim, the case did not “arise under” federal law.

Third, the Sixth Circuit rejected Stovall’s argument that her claim was effectively a copyright dispute because it might provoke an infringement action by NCS Pearson. The Kentucky Open Records Act claim did not resemble an infringement action and did not seek to vindicate rights equivalent to those protected by the Copyright Act. Accordingly, it was not preempted and did not fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that Stovall also lacked Article III standing under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The Court explained that a speculative fear of future litigation does not create the “substantial controversy” required to establish a justiciable case or controversy. Stovall had not alleged any prior infringement claim, threat of suit, or concrete indication that NCS Pearson intended to sue [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Expert had firm grip on Rule 702

by | Jan 29, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an exclusion of expert testimony and grant of judgment as a matter of law, finding that the district court improperly conflated admissibility with credibility and weight of the evidence. Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies, et al., Case Nos. 023-2226; -2234 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2026) (Prost, Taranto, Stark, JJ.) (Prost, J., dissenting).

Mark Barry owns patents covering surgical techniques and tools for treating spinal deformities. Barry sued DePuy alleging that DePuy induced surgeons to infringe the patents. The patents describe tools and methods, including levers, for applying force to vertebrae to realign the spinal column. Two of the patents required the presence of a “handle means,” which the district court construed as “a part that is designed especially to be grasped by the hand.”

At trial, Barry relied on two experts. His infringement expert, Dr. Walid Yassir, testified that DePuy’s accused tools could be assembled and used in infringing configurations and that certain components (or linked assemblies) constituted the claimed “handle means” under the court’s construction. Barry also offered expert testimony from Dr. David Neal, who conducted a surgeon survey to estimate how often DePuy’s tools were used in infringing configurations, which in turn supported Barry’s damages case.

Although the district court had denied DePuy’s pretrial Daubert motions regarding Barry’s experts, it reversed course mid-trial. The court excluded Yassir’s testimony on the ground that he contradicted the court’s claim construction by equating “handle means” with parts that must be grasped during assembly. The court also excluded Neal’s survey testimony, concluding that methodological flaws, such as nonprobability sampling and alleged defects in question design, rendered the survey unreliable. Having excluded both experts, the court granted DePuy judgment as a matter of law. Barry appealed.

The Federal Circuit agreed that expert opinion that contradicts a court’s claim construction would not be helpful to a jury and should be excluded under Rule 702. The Court found, however, that Yassir did not contradict the court’s construction but instead applied it in a manner a reasonable factfinder could accept or reject – a disputed application that DePuy challenged on cross-examination. However, DePuy did not object to Yassir’s direct testimony despite having secured a pretrial ruling barring evidence inconsistent with the claim construction.

The Federal Circuit concluded that Yassir’s testimony did not contradict the court’s claim construction but rather exposed areas of tension and potential weakness in how Yassir applied that construction to the accused devices. The Court explained that DePuy’s questioning elicited testimony about what could constitute a “handle means” that went to the credibility and persuasiveness of Yassir’s opinions, not their admissibility. The Court rejected the district court’s reliance on isolated testimonial snippets divorced from their surrounding explanations, noting that ordinary ambiguities and concessions revealed through adversarial questioning are for the jury to evaluate and do not convert an expert’s application of a claim construction into an impermissible contradiction warranting exclusion under Rule 702.

The Federal Circuit likewise held that the district court abused [...]

Continue Reading



read more

All rise: Here comes the real judge

by | Jan 22, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register trademark applications (over oppositions) for two character marks and a design mark based on the Board’s finding of likelihood of confusion with the common law rights of a world-famous baseball player and major league baseball’s players association  as supported by substantial evidence and consistent with trademark law. Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, Case No. 23-2073 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) (Hughes, Freeman, Lourie, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Michael Chisena, acting pro se, sought trademark registration for two word marks, ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE, and a design mark featuring a baseball field with a superimposed scale of justice and judge’s gavel (pictured below) (Chisena marks) for use in connection with “clothing, namely t-shirts, shirts, shorts, pants, sweatshirts, sweatpants, jackets, jerseys, athletic uniforms, and caps.”

Source: Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, Case No. 23-2073 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026), Slip Op at 2.

Chisena filed intent to use applications and alleged that the constructive use priority date for the word marks was July 14, 2017, and for the design mark it was October 12, 2017. The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and Aaron Judge, a superstar Yankees outfielder and team captain (collectively, appellees), filed Notices of Opposition against registration of the marks, which the Board consolidated into a single proceeding.

Judge is a well-known baseball player whose rise to fame prompted the commercialization of judicial slogans and insignia in connection with his baseball career. The appellees alleged that the Chisena marks would likely cause confusion with their marks, which include ALL RISE and certain judicial symbols. They argued that they had common law trademark rights that predated Chisena’s alleged priority dates. The Board found that the appellees established priority against the Chisena marks and that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks and therefore refused to register the Chisena marks. Chisena appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s priority decisions were supported by substantial evidence that appellees’ marks were used in commerce prior to the Chisena marks’ priority date. The Court concluded that the priority dates for the Chisena marks were the constructive use filing dates since Chisena did not use the marks in commerce until after he filed the applications. The Court further relied on licensed products bearing judicial slogans, phrases, symbols, and personal indicia related to Judge used as early as June 2017 in holding that appellees’ common law trademark rights predated the Chisena marks’ priority dates.

Chisena argued that appellees did not adequately identify the specific marks at issue in their Notices of Opposition. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the notices provided fair notice because they adequately claimed ownership of the marks that served as the basis for the opposition and the basis for appellees’ priority claims.

Chisena argued that the appellees’ [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES