Federal Circuit Addresses Weighty Constitutional Issues
In their Intellectual Property Litigation column, Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone review recent Federal Circuit decisions that invalidated the Lanham Act's preclusion of disparaging marks; held that the International Trade Commission lacks jurisdiction over cases involving "intangible" goods; confirmed the constitutionality of the inter partes review provisions of the America Invents Act; and defined the scope of infringement liability for products manufactured abroad.
January 13, 2016 at 01:08 AM
12 minute read
We report on important decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that (i) invalidated the Lanham Act's preclusion of disparaging marks; (ii) held that the International Trade Commission lacks jurisdiction over cases involving “intangible” goods; (iii) confirmed the constitutionality of the inter partes review provisions of the America Invents Act; and (iv) defined the scope of infringement liability for products manufactured abroad.
Anti-Disparagement
Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act precludes registration of “scandalous, immoral, or disparaging marks.” See In re Tam, No. 2014-1203, 2015 WL 9287035, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015) (Tam II) (citing 19 U.S.C. §1052(a)). Where a proposed mark references a group of people, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has refused to register the mark if it concludes that a substantial composite of that group would find the mark disparaging. See id. at *4. Although the statutory provision is not new, it saw only infrequent use until relatively recently.
In its Dec. 22, 2015, decision in Tam II, the Federal Circuit invalidated Section 2(a) on First Amendment grounds.
Simon Shiao Tam is the frontman of an Asian-American rock band called “The Slants,” which seeks to reclaim ownership of Asian stereotypes and draws inspiration from “childhood slurs and mocking nursery rhymes.” Tam sought to register the mark, “The Slants.” Id. at *4. The PTO examiner rejected the application, finding that the term “slants” would likely be disparaging to people of Asian descent. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed, as did a Federal Circuit panel. See id. at *4–6.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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 AllNot All Secrets Are Trade Secrets: SDNY Examines the Limits of NDA Protection
13 minute read'Rampant Piracy': US Record Labels File Copyright Suit Against French Distributor Believe
5 minute readDow Jones, New York Post Sue Perplexity AI Over Alleged Misuse of Copyrighted Works
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 2Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 3State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 4Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
- 5Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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