Search the Archives           Subscribe           About this News Service           Reader Comments


Archived updates for Thursday, January 17, 2008

USPTO Duty of Candor Includes "Clearly Established" Trademark Rights?

In "Patents Compared to Trademarks: The Duty of Candor/The Avoidance of Fraud," Tamsen Valoir and Professor David Hricik write in the November-December 2007 issue of The Trademark Reporter that, as with patent application prosecution, there are steps that can be taken to prevent the occurrence of fraud and the possible loss of trademark registration rights during trademark application prosecution. They suggest

  • First, send trademark registration applicants a letter about the registration application oath and the duty of candor, explaining each in simple language.
  • Second, disclose prior trademark uses to the USPTO, where it is “clearly established” that another user has rights in the subject mark, such as through settlement agreements, court judgments, and "trademark registrations where the registered marks are identical or confusingly similar."
  • Third, if there is apparent confusion as to ownership of the mark, take additional steps to investigate true ownership. Mere licensees cannot acquire trademark registration rights.
  • Finally, there may be an opportunity to “cure” any breach if an applicant amends its application prior to an opposition or cancellation proceeding being undertaken.
The authors acknowledge that, unlike the duty of candor in patent applications, there is no general “duty to disclose” known third party uses of the mark. However, they also propose that where another user's trademark rights are “clearly established,” then they must also be disclosed under eCash Techs., Inc. v. Guagliardo, 210 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1149 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (“Only in the rare circumstance that another user of the same mark’s rights are ‘clearly established’ must this use be disclosed. In Rosso, the Federal Circuit indicated that rights may be ‘clearly established’ by ‘a court decree, by . . . a settlement agreement, or by a [trademark] registration.’ In most cases, the registration applicant has no obligation to report other users.”); and Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 918 F.2d 1439, 1444 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding a right “clearly established” by an adverse court decision).
    (1)comment(s)     translate     More Updates     Send    

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^Thanks!!

婚前徵信婚姻感情大陸抓姦外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚工商徵信婚前徵信外遇抓姦感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦離婚家暴工商徵信法律諮詢跟蹤工商徵信婚前徵信感情挽回外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴尋人大陸抓姦離婚大陸抓姦外遇尋人家暴工商徵信法律諮詢家暴感情挽回大陸抓姦外遇婚前徵信離婚尋人工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信大陸抓姦尋人感情挽回外遇抓姦婚前徵信感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦工商徵信法律諮詢離婚家暴工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢離婚感情挽回婚前徵信外遇抓姦家暴尋人工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回">徵大陸抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢

April 06, 2009 11:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home