Insight on Opposition & Cancellation Proceedings
ROTHWELL FIGG - The U.S. Trademark Opposition Law Firm. Rothwell Figg has substantial experience in representing global companies in trademark opposition proceedings before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Why work with us? Here are a few reasons:
Here are some of the clients who have retained our services:
Attorneys and law firms also seek out our services to represent their own clients or provide guidance and subject matter expertise.
To speak with our attorneys about your matter, please contact James Hastings at (914) 941-5668 or email: jhastings@rfem.com
Ignorance of the law is no excuse – and trademark owners who do not hire an experienced trademark attorney may end up paying dearly for their mistake.
The Perils of Self-Representation
When faced with a trademark opposition, many companies or small businesses believe that they can effectively represent themselves. They quickly find out, however, that…
WARNING: Provoke the alligators at your own risk!
In a recent decision before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the University of Florida was successful in defeating a trademark application for the mark GATOR SHOP for online and retail store services.
In University Athletic Association v. Incentive Marketing, Inc., the Opposer (the University…
Target Brands, Inc., the well-known multichannel retailer, recently received affirmation from the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that its “bullseye” design mark is a moniker that deserves to be respected.
In Target Brands, Inc. v. Artificer Life Corp., Target had opposed two trademark applications for registration of the mark ARTIFICER and Design for a…
We often receive inquiries from domestic and international companies on how to oppose a U.S. trademark application that is filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. There are several components to this question that require a brief explanation.
What is an Opposition? When a party files a trademark application in the United States,…
In a recent decision under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board analyzed what factors make a trademark arbitrary and strong for purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis. Indigo Star, Inc. and H2d Properties, Inc. v. Patti’s Enterprises, L.L.C.
Applicant filed two applications for the trademark THE…
The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has ruled in favor of Pepsi-Cola in a trademark opposition case filed by the New York beverage giant against a pro se applicant in the matter of Pepsico, Inc. v. Jay Pirincci.
The Applicant had sought registration of the mark CAN DEW for nutritional drink mixes to…
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently published a summary of Trademark Opposition and Cancellation filing and performance results for the fiscal year 2013.
As predicted, the number of trademark litigation proceedings before the board increased as compared to the preceding year. While it could be theorized that the increase was due to more trademark…
The resolution of trademark opposition and trademark cancellation motions by telephone conference is discretionary with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Generally, the Board may schedule a conference at the request of one or more parties, or on the Board’s own initiative.
Contacting the Trademark Board attorney. If a party believes that a matter may…
In an effort to facilitate case management and to reduce litigation expenses, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board permits certain motions to be hear via telephone conference. These include motions in the pleading phase, discovery phase, and/or the trial phase of a trademark opposition or trademark cancellation proceeding.
Examples of motions that the board may…
A trademark opposition proceeding is commenced by timely filing a Notice of opposition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. According to USPTO rules, any person who believes that he/she may be damaged may file an opposition against a pending trademark application. While the term “any person” is construed broadly for purposes of filing…
