In re Bose: Strategies for Trademark Prosecution Under the New Fraud Standard

Federal Circuit overturns central component of TTAB's Medinol doctrine on Aug. 31

Recording of a 90-minute premium CLE webinar with Q&A

Conducted on Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926
Program Materials

This seminar will review the Federal Circuit's decision in In re Bose and how the court reached its conclusion. The panel will discuss the impact of the decision on trademark applications, applicants and owners and outline best practices for defending trademarks.

Description

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' landmark decision in In re Bose sets a new standard for fraud prosecution. The court overturned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) Medinol decision, rejecting the TTAB’s “should have known” standard for fraud.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the TTAB had "erroneously lowered the fraud standard to a simple negligence standard."

Going forward, a party seeking to cancel a trademark registration on fraud grounds must prove intent to deceive the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) by clear and convincing evidence. Trademark applicants and owners must ensure diligence in making accurate representations to the PTO.

Listen as our authoritative panel of intellectual property attorneys examines the Federal Circuit’s ruling and its implications for IP owners and counsel and offers strategies for operating under the new fraud standard.

READ MORE

Outline

  1. In re Bose
    1. Medinol v. Neuro Vasx
    2. TTAB decision
    3. Federal Circuit ruling
  2. Implications of Bose
    1. On applications and registrations invalidated during Medinol years
    2. Appropriate consequences for false, but not fraudulent, statement regarding continued use in commerce
    3. Certainty in fraud-based litigation
    4. Evidentiary issues
  3. Best practices

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key questions:

  • What are the implications of the Bose decision for trademark applicants, owners and challengers?
  • How can a challenging party prove fraud in a trademark application under the new standard?
  • Can applications or registrations invalidated during the Medinol years now be restored under the new standard?

Faculty

Baird, Stephen
Stephen R. Baird
Shareholder
Winthrop & Weinstine

Mr. Baird heads the Intellectual Property and Trademark and Brand Management Practice Groups, and his practice...  |  Read More

Jonathan Hudis
Jonathan Hudis
Partner
Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt

Mr. Hudis counsels clients in trademark, copyright, unfair competition and trade secrets matters and is well...  |  Read More

James H. Johnson, Jr.
James H. Johnson, Jr.
Counsel
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan

He focuses on trademarks and service marks, unfair competition and domain name disputes. His experience includes...  |  Read More

Access Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include program handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Audio

Download