By: Audrey Millemann
A patent is infringed by one who, in the United States, makes, uses, sells, or offers to sell the patented invention, or imports the patented invention into the United States. 35 U.S.C. Section 271(a). The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractrors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2010), clarified the meaning of “offers to sell.” Continue Reading Liability for Offers to Sell Clarified
In early November, 2010 Nintendo of America filed a trademark registration application for the mark ITS ON LIKE DONKEY KONG for, among other items, video games. Nintendo filed its mark on an intent to use basis in preparation for the launch of its video game, Donkey Kong Country Returns, for the Wii game system. The fact that Nintendo filed a trademark registration application for the upcoming release of a video game is not necessarily newsworthy. The interesting thing about Nintendo’s application is that the mark is a phrase that has become well entrenched in the common lexicon. This raises the question, will the common use of the phrase have an effect on Nintendo’s ability to register the mark?Continue Reading Can It Still Be On Like Donkey Kong.
Does the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act impose liability upon cybersquatters who innocently register a domain name and properly use it for many years, but who then use a domain name with a bad faith intent to profit from the protected mark by holding the domain name for ransom? In DSPT Int’l, Inc. v. Nahum, __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 4227883, No. 08-55062 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2010), the Ninth Circuit answered in the affirmative. Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit expands the scope of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: cybersquatters may no longer use a domain name with a bad faith intent to profit from the protected mark by holding the domain name for ransom
By: Jeff Pietsch
Trademark infringement occurs when a third party uses a mark in a way that infringes upon a trademark owner’s exclusive right and use of a trademark. Often, the third party will use a similar mark in a way that confuses consumers as to the source of the goods and services. For example, a fast food restaurant named “Wendi’s” would likely cause confusion with “Wendy’s.” Trademark infringement can occur only when it is likely that consumers will be confused as to the source of the goods. The purpose of this article is to examine the test and factors that courts use to determine if such infringement exists.Continue Reading Trademark Infringement: Factors Considered in Consumer Confusion
In December, 2009 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Forest Group v. Bon Tool Company (Forest Group v. Bon Tool Co., (Fed Cir. 2009) 590 F.3d 1295) and changed the landscape relating to damages under the “false marking” section of the patent laws. The decision in Forest altered nearly 100 years of precedent by dramatically increasing potential damage awards available to plaintiffs complaining that products are improperly identified as “patented” or “patent pending.”
Continue Reading Forest, Solo, and the Ten Trillion Dollar Man
