TTAB's Tougher Stance on Fraud in Trademark Applications and Registrations
Strategies to Mitigate Risk of Cancellation and Invalidation of Marks
CD/DVD of a 90-minute CLE teleconference with Q&A
Conducted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Now available on CD/DVD
Description
The TTAB has recently established a more unforgiving definition of fraud. It has given teeth to its warnings against trademark owners' and applicants' willful false statements by demonstrating a willingness to void an entire application or an existing trademark registration if it finds fraud.
Trademark applicants and owners must prepare to deal with the tougher standards that are emerging out of TTAB rulings on pleading fraud.
Listen as our authoritative panel examines the recent trend at the TTAB, core components of pleading and providing fraud, and discusses best practices to mitigate the risk of inaccurate applications and registrations.
Outline
- State of the law and recent developments
- General legal background pre-Medinol
- Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx Inc. (2003)
- Since Medinol
- Differentiation of fraud and void ab initio grounds
- Core components of pleading fraud
- Test for fraud
- Procedural issues
- Considerations for plaintiffs
- Considerations for defendants
- Impact on opposition or cancellation proceeding
- Best practices
- Use extreme care with use-based applications and statements of use
- Monitor use of marks
- Maintaining proof of use
- Timing of “cure” and what to do if you are too late
- Fraudit
- Consider seeking separate registrations for different classes of goods/services
Benefits
The panel reviewed these and other key questions:
- What is the current state of the law concerning allegations of fraud before the TTAB?
- What are the next steps for plaintiffs and defendants in the event of fraud pleadings?
- What strategies and procedures should trademark owners utilize to mitigate the risk of fraud allegations?
Faculty
Stephen R. Baird,
Shareholder
Winthrop & Weinstine, Minneapolis
He heads the firm's Intellectual Property and Trademark and Brand Management Practice groups and handles trademark litigation matters in proceedings in federal court and before the TTAB. He counsels clients on trademark usage and clearance, branding strategies, portfolio management, litigation and enforcement, internet domain name disputes, licensing and prosecution.
Jennifer Lee Taylor,
Partner
Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco
She focuses on intellectual property litigation and counseling. She has extensive experience litigating opposition and cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. She counsels clients on trademark and copyright matters, including registering trademarks, service marks and copyrights, managing portfolios, policing marks and copyrights, and licensing agreements.
Beth A. Chapman,
Of Counsel
Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt, Alexandria, Va.
She is a member of the firm's Trademark and Copyright Department. Prior to joining the firm, she served as a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) Judge (1998–2005). Before her judicial appointment, she served as an examining attorney, then a managing attorney of a law office, before taking a position as an interlocutory attorney at the TTAB.
Ordering
Teleconference on CD
Purchase a CD of the full event proceedings, including Q&A and PDF files of all handouts (available 10 days after the seminar).
For CLE only, this program is pre-approved for self-study credit in AK, AZ, CA, MO, MT, VT, WV.
Self-study CLE credits are also available in CT*, CO, GA, ID, KY, LA, ME, NV, ND, NY*, OR, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY.
Please call us if you will be self-reporting in one of these states. *For CT and NY, Strafford needs to process the CLE — see below to purchase this option
Self-study CPE is not offered on CD purchases.
CD $297.00 plus $9.45 S&H
CLE Processing on CD/DVD (NY and CT Only)
CLE processing for listening to the CD/DVD is available for an additional $65 per person per state in NY and CT.
CLE on CD Processing $65.00
CLE Credit
Strafford seminars qualify for CLE credits in every state that accredits teleconferences. They offer you a high quality, cost effective, and convenient CLE option, with no lost travel time or expenses.
Customer Reviews
I liked the combined depth of information and speed of presentation. Well done!
Andre Dalbec
SAANYS
One of the best CLEs outside my firm that I have attended in a long time. The materials and the dual perspectives were great and the comments on one another's presentations were very instructive.
Lisa Taylor Hudson
Sands Anderson Marks & Miller
The teleconference contained information that was relevant, useful and up-to-date.
Mark Hegedus
Spiegel & McDiarmid
All of the speakers had a wide range of knowledge.
Kimberly Hayes
General Mills
The panelists covered the topic well and in depth.
Andrea Mealey
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge
Intellectual Property Law Advisory Board
Shareholder
Winthrop & Weinstine
Partner
Porter & Hedges
Partner
Winston & Strawn
Partner
Stein McEwen & Bui
Partner
Mayer Brown
Partner
Duane Morris
Partner
Reed Smith
Partner
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
Partner
Holland + Knight
Partner
McDermott Will & Emery