You searched for Trademark appeal | Page 10 of 75

Results for "Trademark appeal"

Don’t get too comfy: Prosecution disclaimer also applies to design patents

by Connor M. Larson | Jul 24, 2025 | Patents

Concluding that the principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and entry of a jury verdict that found liability for design patent infringement. Top Brand, LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company, LLC, Case No. 24-2191 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2025) (Dyk, Reyna, Stark, JJ.)

Top Brand and Cozy Comfort compete in the market for oversized hooded sweatshirts. Cozy Comfort owns a design patent directed to “the ornamental design for an enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket.” It accused Top Brand of infringing the patent through its sale of certain hooded sweatshirts and wearable blankets. In response, Top Brand filed a declaratory judgment action seeking findings of noninfringement and invalidity. Cozy Comfort counterclaimed for design patent and trademark infringement.

During prosecution, Cozy Comfort overcame an anticipation rejection by distinguishing the prior art under the ordinary observer test, pointing to specific features such as the shape and placement of the marsupial pocket and the bottom hem line. Top Brand argued that these statements constituted a clear disclaimer of claim scope, and that the accused products fell within the surrendered subject matter.

The district court disagreed, instructing the jury to compare the accused products to the design as claimed (without considering any prosecution disclaimer). The jury found infringement, and the court entered judgment accordingly, denying Top Brand’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Top Brand appealed.

Top Brand argued that the district court erred by failing to apply prosecution history disclaimer, asserting that the accused design was within the scope of the subject matter Cozy Comfort had disclaimed. Cozy Comfort responded that the disclaimer doctrine does not apply to design patents and, even if it did, Cozy Comfort’s prosecution statements were not sufficiently clear to constitute a disclaimer.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, concluding that prosecution history disclaimer applies to design patents. The Court reasoned that allowing patentees to recapture disclaimed subject matter in litigation would undermine the integrity of the patent system. The Court emphasized that Cozy Comfort’s statements during prosecution clearly surrendered the identified features as supporting a finding of overall similarity. Because the accused design incorporated those surrendered features, the Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find infringement.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and vacated the jury’s verdict.

Clean bill of health: Only domestic activities count when analyzing likelihood of confusion

by Hannah Hurley | Jul 24, 2025 | Trademarks

Affirming a summary judgment decision finding no trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that the district court properly focused on domestic activity with regard to the allegedly infringing trademark. Doctor’s Best, Inc. v. Nature’s Way Products, LLC, Case No. 24-2719 (9th Cir. July 15, 2025) (Paez, Ikuta, Nelson, JJ.) (Ikuta, J., concurring).

Doctor’s Best (DB) manufactures nutritional supplements under the mark NATURE’S DAY at its California facility. Although the products bear English labels compliant with US regulations, they are marketed and sold exclusively in China, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Nature’s Way Products (NWP), owner of the long-standing US trademark NATURE’S WAY, opposed DB’s attempt to register NATURE’S DAY in the United States, citing potential consumer confusion. After NWP sent a cease-and-desist letter, DB preemptively sued for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. NWP counterclaimed for trademark infringement under Sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

In June 2023, the Supreme Court held in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc. that the Lanham Act’s infringement provisions apply only to domestic “use in commerce.” DB moved for summary judgment, arguing that its only domestic activity – transporting products within the US – did not create a likelihood of confusion among US consumers. The district court agreed, finding that DB’s domestic transport of Nature’s Day products was insufficient to support a claim of infringement. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that this conduct would confuse US consumers and granted summary judgment in favor of DB. NWP appealed.

NWP argued that any domestic use in commerce, however minimal, triggered the full likelihood-of-confusion analysis, even if confusion occurred abroad. The Ninth Circuit rejected this interpretation, holding that Abitron requires courts to first identify domestic use before evaluating confusion. The Court found that DB’s manufacturing and transport activities were the only relevant domestic conduct.

Turning to likelihood of confusion, the Ninth Circuit applied the eight-factor test set forth in its 1979 decision in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats:

Strength of the mark
Proximity or relatedness of the goods
Similarity of the marks
Evidence of actual confusion
Marketing channels used
Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark
The likelihood of expansion of the product lines

Reviewing the Sleekcraft factors, the Ninth Circuit concluded that no genuine dispute existed as to the likelihood of confusion. DB’s products were sold exclusively overseas while NWP’s products were sold only in the US. The Court emphasized that confusion must occur among domestic consumers to be actionable under the Lanham Act, and that did not occur here.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Ikuta agreed with the outcome but clarified that DB’s transport of products constituted a domestic use in commerce. However, she found no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether that use caused domestic confusion, reiterating that Abitron excludes extraterritorial confusion from the analysis.

Victory lap: Extraterritorial injunction permitted for breach of settlement agreement

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Jul 24, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a permanent injunction, concluding that the district court properly determined that a party’s violation of a settlement agreement would lead to irreparable harm. Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Wong, Case No. 24-1186 (4th Cir. July 11, 2025) (King, Gregory, Rushing, JJ.)

The dispute originated in 2017 when Wudi registered the trademark GTRACING with the US Patent & Trademark Office. Wai L. Wong, asserting prior use of the similar mark GT OMEGA RACING, initiated cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board. In 2020, the Board ruled in Wong’s favor. Wudi sought review in the Eastern District of Virginia under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b), and Wong counterclaimed for trademark infringement.

In May 2021, the parties entered into a confidential global concurrent-use settlement agreement resolving their litigation. Under the agreement, Wudi was permitted to use GTRACING globally, except in designated regions including multiple European countries. Critically, paragraph 6(b) of the agreement prohibited Wudi from using the phrases “GTRACING” or “GT RACING” in online advertising or social media within the European carve-out. The district court subsequently granted a stay of the dispute pending compliance by the parties.

Following the compliance period, Wong alleged that Wudi violated the agreement by using prohibited terms in online marketing within the restricted regions. The district court granted Wong’s motion to enforce the agreement, ordering Wudi to remove specific content and cease future violations. The district court warned that continued noncompliance could result in contempt proceedings.

Wudi appealed, and the Fourth Circuit initially remanded the case, instructing the district court to apply the four-factor eBay test for injunctive relief. The district court found that Wudi had breached the agreement and that Wong had suffered irreparable harm to the goodwill of its marks. The court concluded that monetary damages were inadequate, the balance of hardships favored Wong, and enforcing the agreement served the public interest. The district court issued a permanent injunction. Wudi appealed again.

Wudi challenged the injunction on multiple grounds, including claims of extraterritorial overreach, improper application of the eBay factors, erroneous breach findings, exclusion of parol evidence, failure to apply the unclean hands doctrine, and improper award of attorneys’ fees.

The Fourth Circuit rejected Wudi’s arguments and affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Court held that the injunction merely enforced contractual obligations voluntarily undertaken by Wudi and that the district court properly applied the eBay test. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s exclusion of parol evidence and its rejection of the unclean hands defense, finding that the district court properly concluded that reputational harm can demonstrate that irreparable injury will flow from the breach of a trademark-related settlement agreement.

State court action doesn’t create reasonable apprehension of related federal claims

by Tessa Kroll | Jul 17, 2025 | Trade Secrets

Addressing whether a federal district court had jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief that certain trade secrets and trademarks were invalid and not infringed, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded that state law claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and trademark infringement did not create a reasonable apprehension of federal litigation sufficient to give rise to federal jurisdiction. Thunderhead of Ankeny, Inc. v. Chicken Bones of Kearney, Inc., Case No. 24-2741 (8th Cir. July 8, 2025) (Colloton, Arnold, Gruender, JJ.)

Nearly 20 years ago, David Anders sold his equity in Chicken Bones of Kearney, Inc., which ran a bar and grill called the Chicken Coop. Anders subsequently opened a new Chicken Coop restaurant. Chicken Bones sued Anders for misappropriating Chicken Bones’ trade secrets, trademarks, and trade dress. The parties settled, and Anders received a limited license to the Chicken Coop intellectual property. Anders then opened several other Chicken Coop locations under that license.

Believing that Anders had not complied with the license in opening the new restaurants, Chicken Bones sued Anders in state court for breach of the settlement agreement, misappropriation of trade secret recipes, and infringement of the Chicken Coop trademarks and trade dress. In response, Anders sued Chicken Bones in federal court, seeking declarations of noninfringement and invalidity. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. Anders appealed.

The parties and the Eighth Circuit assumed that the district court would have jurisdiction only if the suit presented a federal question. The Eighth Circuit explained that to assess federal question jurisdiction in the case of a declaratory action, the Court must imagine a traditional action that presents the same controversy and determine whether a federal claim would appear on the face of the resulting complaint. “If, but for the availability of the declaratory judgment procedure, the federal claim would arise only as a defense to a state created action, jurisdiction is lacking.”

Applying this principle, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Anders’ declaratory action because he primarily sought vindication of his defenses to Chicken Bones’ pending state law claims. While the Court recognized that Anders also sought declaratory relief in anticipation of potential federal trade secret, trademark, and trade dress claims, the Court reasoned that any federal law controversy between the parties was too speculative to support jurisdiction. While a threat of litigation can give rise to a justiciable controversy, there was no evidence that Chicken Bones would assert overlapping and duplicative federal law claims against Anders. The Eighth Circuit further found that Chicken Bones’ petition to cancel Anders’ federal trademark registration of a Chicken Coop logo did not change its analysis, because the petition merely confirmed the existence of a trademark infringement dispute between the parties, which Chicken Coop elected to adjudicate in state court.

The Eighth Circuit distinguished cases involving state law trade secret claims concerning a patented invention. Because there is no state patent system, such trade secret claims can [...]

Continue Reading

Seeing double? Director instructs Board to resolve claim construction pre-institution

by Benjamin Ediger, Ph.D. | Jul 2, 2025 | Patents

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision to institute two inter partes review (IPR) petitions that challenged the same claims. The acting director determined that the two petitions primarily differed with respect to claim construction. In a decision designated as “informative,” he authorized the Board to resolve claim construction pre-institution in view of the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide’s (CTPG) direction that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., IPR2025-00068; -00070 (PTAB June 25, 2025) (Stewart, Act. Dir.) The PTO designates a decision as informative when it provides “norms on recurring issues, guidance on issues of first impression to the Board, guidance on Board rules and practices, and guidance on issues that may develop through analysis of recurring issues in many cases.”

CrowdStrike submitted two IPR petitions that challenged the same claims of GoSecure’s patent. The Board instituted both IPRs. GoSecure requested director review, asserting that instituting both petitions was an abuse of the Board’s discretion. On review, the acting director determined that the Board abused its discretion in view of the CTPG’s direction.

The acting director concluded that the two petitions did not reflect an exception to the CTPG’s direction. He determined that CrowdStrike’s petitions were primarily distinguished by the constructions applied to a claim term. The acting director explained that the Board should have construed the term at issue prior to granting institution, concluding that the Board’s institution decision amounted to improper expansion of CrowdStrike’s permitted word count and placed a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and GoSecure that could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns. The acting director vacated and remanded the Board’s institution decision.

The acting director also instructed the Board that the patent owner should be allowed to “submit whatever arguments are necessary for the panel to make a claim construction determination” even if the patent owner has not addressed the issue.

No Fairytale Ending for Consumer Opposition: RAPUNZEL Reinforces Lexmark Standing Limits

by Hannah Hurley | May 29, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s dismissal of a trademark opposition brought by a consumer, holding that mere consumer interest is insufficient to establish standing under Section 13 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1063). The ruling reinforced the application of the Supreme Court’s Lexmark (2014) framework to administrative trademark proceedings and clarified that only parties with commercial interest fall within the “zone of interests” protected by the statute when challenging a mark. Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., Case No. 23-2140 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2025) (Taranto, Hughes, JJ.; Barnett, Distr. J., sitting by designation.)

United Trademark Holdings (UTH) applied to register the mark RAPUNZEL for dolls and toy figures. Rebecca Curtin, a law professor, doll collector, and mother, opposed the registration, arguing that “Rapunzel” is a generic or descriptive term and its registration would harm consumers by reducing competition and increasing prices for fairytale-themed dolls.

The Board dismissed Curtin’s opposition, concluding she lacked standing to oppose under § 1063. The Board applied the Lexmark framework, which requires a showing that the opposer’s interests fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute and that the alleged injury is proximately caused by the registration. The Board found that Curtin, as a consumer, failed both prongs. Curtin appealed.

Curtin argued she had statutory entitlement under the 1999 Federal Circuit decision in Ritchie v. Simpson, “a case that addressed a section of the Trademark Act barring registration of ‘immoral’ or ‘scandalous’ matter.”

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board, holding that the Lexmark framework applied rather than Ritchie. The Court explained that while the Lanham Act may indirectly benefit consumers, the statutory cause of action is reserved for those with commercial interest. Since Curtin’s opposition was based on claims that the mark was generic, descriptive, or failed to function as a mark, her interest as a consumer did not fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute.

The Federal Circuit also found that Curtin’s alleged injuries, namely reduced marketplace competition, increased prices, and diminished access to diverse interpretations of the Rapunzel character, were too speculative and derivative of harm that might be suffered by commercial competitors. The Court reiterated that injuries must be direct and not merely downstream effects of harm to others. Curtin’s submission of a petition with more than 400 signatures from like-minded consumers did not alter the Court’s conclusion that her alleged harm was too remote to satisfy the proximate cause requirement.

Practice Note: The Federal Circuit’s decision reinforces that only parties with direct commercial stakes, such as competitors or potential market entrants, have standing to oppose trademark registrations on grounds such as genericness, descriptiveness, or fraudulence.

Take That Conception Out of the Oven – It’s CRISPR Even If the Cook Doesn’t Know

by Connor M. Larson | May 22, 2025 | America Invents Act, Patents

Addressing the distinction between conception and reduction to practice and the requirement for written description in the unpredictable arts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that proof of conception of an invention does not require that the inventor appreciated the invention at the time of conception. Knowledge that an invention is successful is only part of the case for reduction to practice. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. et al. v. Broad Inst. et al., Case No. 22-1594 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025) (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

The Regents of the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, Regents) and the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, Broad) were each separately involved in research concerning CRISPR systems that “are immune defense systems in prokaryotic cells that naturally edit DNA.” At issue was the invention of the use of CRISPR systems to modify the DNA in eukaryotic cells. Regents and Broad filed competing patent applications resulting in an interference proceeding under pre-AIA law at the US Patent & Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences to determine which applicant had priority to the invention.

The main issue before the Board was a priority dispute over who first conceived of the invention and sufficiently reduced it to practice under pre-AIA patent law. Regents submitted three provisional patent applications dated May 2012, October 2012, and January 2013 and moved to be accorded the benefit of the earliest filing date, May 2012, for the purpose of determining priority. Alternatively, Reagents sought to be accorded either October 2012 or January 2013 as its priority date. The Board found that Regents’ first and second provisional applications (filed in May and October 2012, respectively) were not a constructive reduction to practice because neither satisfied the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The third provisional application, filed in January 2013, was the first to amount to a constructive reduction to practice of the counts in interference. The Board then ruled that Broad was the senior party for the purposes of priority in the interference proceeding because Broad reduced the invention to practice by October 5, 2012, when a scientist submitted a manuscript to a journal publisher. The Board ruled that Regents failed to prove conception of the invention prior to Broad’s actual reduction to practice. Regents appealed.

Regents argued that in assessing conception, the Board “legally erred by requiring Regents’ scientist to know that their invention would work.” The Federal Circuit agreed and vacated the Board’s decision. As the Court explained, there are three stages to the inventive process: conception, reasonable diligence, and reduction to practice. At the conception stage, “an inventor need not know that his invention will work for conception to be complete.” Rather, knowledge that the invention will work, “necessarily, can rest only on an actual reduction to practice.” The Board therefore legally erred by requiring Regents to know its invention would work to prove [...]

Continue Reading

Designated Informative: PTO Director Declines IPR Institution Following District Court § 101 Invalidation

by Jodi Benassi | May 15, 2025 | Patents

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) designated a recent Director Review decision as informative, signaling its significance for future proceedings. The decision emphasizes that a final district court ruling invalidating a patent weighs heavily against instituting inter partes review (IPR) under the Fintiv framework, reinforcing the agency’s stance on minimizing duplicative litigation. Hulu LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution LLC, IPR2024-01252; -01253 (PTAB Director Review Apr. 17, 2025) (Stewart, PTO Dir.)

Piranha requested Director Review of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s decision granting institution of two IPRs filed by Hulu. Piranha argued that the decision should be reversed and the IPRs denied institution, citing a district court final judgment invalidating the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 issued before the institution decision was made. Hulu argued that Director Review was unwarranted.

In the district court litigation, Piranha asserted that Hulu infringed claims from two patents related to integration of advertising content into digital media streams. Hulu moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the asserted patents were ineligible for patenting under § 101. The district court determined that the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of “displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material, as well as the abstract idea of receiving, organizing, and displaying data,” and contained no inventive concept. The district court granted Hulu’s motion to dismiss and held the claims patent ineligible and therefore invalid under § 101.

The Director explained that since a district court had already ruled the patent claims invalid, launching separate IPRs to assess their patentability on other grounds was unnecessary. The Director noted that if the Federal Circuit overturned the district court’s decision, Hulu could still pursue its invalidity arguments during remand proceedings. Declining to institute review was the more efficient and practical path under the circumstances, the Director said.

While the Board applied the Fintiv framework in its institution decision, the Director observed that the framework does not align neatly with the facts of this case, where a final district court judgment under § 101 preceded the Board’s decision. The Director ultimately concluded that a second review proceeding was unwarranted given the claims’ current invalid status.

False Connection: Post-Application Date Evidence Can Be Considered

by Ashley K. Justice | May 15, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register a mark on the grounds of false connection, explaining that the false connection inquiry can include evidence that arises during the examination after filing. In re Thomas D. Foster, APC, Case No. 23-1527 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025) (Moore, Prost, Stoll, JJ.)

Under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)), a trademark can be refused registration if it “falsely suggests a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.” To determine if a mark falsely suggests a connection, the Board can use a non-exhaustive four-part test that inquires whether:

The mark is the same, or a close approximation of, the name previously used by another person or institution.
The mark points uniquely or unmistakably to that person or institution.
That person or institution is not connected with the activities performed by the applicant under the mark.
The fame or reputation of the person or institution is such that, when the mark is used with the applicant’s goods or services, a connection with the person or institution would be presumed.

Here, Thomas D. Foster filed a trademark application for the mark US SPACE FORCE on March 19, 2018, six days after President Trump proposed forming a “Space Force.” Registration was refused on the grounds of a false suggestion of a connection with the US government. The Board affirmed and denied reconsideration. Foster appealed.

Foster argued that the Board improperly considered evidence that post-dated the application’s filing date and that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s findings under the first two elements of the four-part false connections test.

Regarding Foster’s first argument, the Federal Circuit found it permissible to use facts that arise after an application’s filing date and during the examination process to assess a false connection. The Court reasoned that this was consistent with other § 2 inquiries that consider evidence that arises through the date the Board issues its decision, such as likelihood of confusion (§ 2(d)) and distinctiveness (§ 2(f)). Therefore, the Court found that the Board did not err in its consideration of evidence that arose during the examination process.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with Foster’s second argument, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings under the false connection test. Under the first part of the test, the Board found that US SPACE FORCE was the same as, or a close approximation of, a name or identity of the United States. The Court concluded that this was supported by substantial evidence, specifically pre-application evidence (President Trump’s announcement and national news articles discussing the formation of the US Space Force) and post-application evidence (the official establishment of the US Space Force and national news articles). Under the second part of the test, the Board had found that US SPACE FORCE pointed uniquely and unmistakably to the United States. The Board again relied on news coverage and the fact that [...]

Continue Reading

No Green Light to Register Color Mark for Medical Gloves

by Eleanor B. Atkins | May 8, 2025 | Trademarks

Addressing for the first time the test for determining whether a color mark is generic, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopted the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s Milwaukee test as the appropriate standard, affirming the Board’s determination that a dark green color mark used on medical examination gloves was generic. In re PT Medisafe Technologies, Case No. 2023-1573 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2025) (Prost, Clevenger, Stark, JJ.)

PT Medisafe filed an application to register a dark green color mark for use in connection with medical examination gloves:

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) examining attorney refused registration, alleging that the mark was not inherently distinctive and therefore required a showing of acquired distinctiveness. In response, Medisafe submitted evidence in support of acquired distinctiveness, including a declaration from a Medisafe vice president, promotional literature, and examples of competitive goods. The examining attorney was not swayed, issuing another office action stating that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness and was generic. Medisafe submitted additional evidence in support of acquired distinctiveness, including additional declarations, but the examining attorney ultimately issued a final office action refusing registration.

On appeal, the Board applied a two-step test to determine whether the applied-for color mark was generic:

What is the genus of the goods or services at issue?
Is the color “so common within the relevant genus that consumers would primarily associate it with the genus rather than as indicating a unique source of goods [or services] within the genus?”

This test, which was first articulated in the Board’s 2019 decision in Milwaukee Electric Tool v. Freud America, is a “slight variation” of the standard test for genericness set forth in the Federal Circuit’s 1986 decision in H. Marvin Ginn v. International Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, modified for use specifically with color marks.

The Board found that the appropriate genus was “all chloroprene medical examination gloves” and the relevant public included “all such people or businesses who do or may purchase chloroprene medical examination gloves.” The Board likewise agreed with the examining attorney that the color mark was generic because “it is so common in the chloroprene medical examination glove industry that it cannot identify a single source.”

The Board cited 25 examples of third parties using the same or a similar dark green color on medical examination gloves. Medisafe claimed that 15 of those 25 examples were Medisafe gloves, but the Board nonetheless affirmed the refusal, noting that “Medisafe made no such claim as to the other 10,” and “all 25 screenshots [are] probative of genericness because the relevant consumer – even including unspecified ‘authorized resellers’ – could be exposed to . . . gloves that appear under a large number of third-party marks without identifying [Medisafe] as the source or manufacturer.” Medisafe appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Medisafe argued that the Board applied the wrong standard in determining that [...]

Continue Reading