Ex Parte Trademark Appeals to District Court — Lessons Learned from the Front Lines
Although pursuit of an appeal of an adverse ex parte decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to the Federal Circuit may under some circumstances prove to be quicker and less expensive, appeals to district courts are becoming increasingly attractive given recent changes in the law and USPTO practice in defending these actions. Based on the authors' recent experience in several such appeals, they can share the following lessons learned.
October 24, 2024 at 03:59 PM
13 minute read
What You Need to Know
- Section 1071 of the Lanham Act provides parties two options for appealing adverse ex parte decisions from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
- The dissatisfied party may either appeal to the Federal Circuit or to any U.S. district court.
- the decision must be fact specific, based on the existing record, the opportunities to augment that record, and the relevant case law in the district and/or circuit courts.
Section 1071 of the Lanham Act provides parties two options for appealing adverse ex parte decisions from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The dissatisfied party may either appeal to the Federal Circuit under Section 1071(a) or to any U.S. district court under Section 1071(b). 15 U.S.C. §1071(a)-(b). Although pursuit of an appeal to the Federal Circuit may under some circumstances prove to be quicker and less expensive, appeals to district courts are becoming increasingly attractive given recent changes in the law and USPTO practice in defending these actions. Based on the authors' recent experience in several such appeals, they can share the following lessons learned.
1. Selection of the Forum
Although many parties may initially be inclined to bring ex parte appeals in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, because the USPTO is domiciled within that district, such appeals also may be brought in any district court in which the appealing party resides. 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1)(C). Assuming the party is a domestic applicant, filing the action in a district court in which the appealing party resides may provide a strategic advantage as the judiciary there may have greater (and ideally positive) familiarity with the appealing party and the designation subject to the appeal. This may prove to be important where the issue on appeal is focused on whether a particular designation is understood by the relevant consuming public to be a trademark — that is where trademark eligibility is being challenged by the USPTO on genericness, descriptiveness and/or failure-to-function grounds.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLJ 500 Firm Seeks 20-Day Extension for Restaurant Client's Injunction Compliance
Chicago Cubs' IP Claim to Continue Against Wrigley View Rooftop, Judge Rules
2 minute readHow We Won: BraunHagey’s $56M Trademark Win Over Molson Coors Upheld by 9th Circuit
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How ‘Bilateral Tapping’ Can Help with Stress and Anxiety
- 2How Law Firms Can Make Business Services a Performance Champion
- 3'Digital Mindset': Hogan Lovells' New Global Managing Partner for Digitalization
- 4Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Has New York Sentence Pardoned by Trump
- 5Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250