<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

    <channel>
    
    <title>LawUpdates.com &#45; Trademark Law Updates</title>
    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary</link>
    <description></description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>contact@lawupdates.com</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2014</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2014-01-27T12:27:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://expressionengine.com/" />
    

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc.: Lanham Act Protects Video Games, not Athletes</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ibrown_v._electronic_arts_inc._i_lanham_act_protects_video_games/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ibrown_v._electronic_arts_inc._i_lanham_act_protects_video_games/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Ninth Circuit recently made it more difficult for public figures and athletes to profit from their likeness appearing in video games. In Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 09&#45;56675 (9th Cir. Jul. 31, 2013), the Court held that Electronic Arts’ unpaid use of NFL great Jim Brown’s likeness in&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-09-24T22:45:29+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.: Supreme Court Affirms that Covenant Not to Sue Can Moot Trademark Case</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ialready_llc_v._nike_inc._i_supreme_court_affirms_that_covenant_not_to_sue_/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ialready_llc_v._nike_inc._i_supreme_court_affirms_that_covenant_not_to_sue_/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Supreme Court recently upheld that a covenant not to sue can moot a trademark case. In Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 11&#45;982 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2013), the Court held that a trademark holder’s covenant not to sue extinguished the case or controversy, rendering moot the defendant’s counterclaim of trademark&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-04-2T21:54:08+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent: Second Circuit Upholds Trademark Protection for Red&#45;Soled Shoes</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ilouboutin_v._yves_saint_laurent_i/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ilouboutin_v._yves_saint_laurent_i/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Second Circuit recently held that single&#45;color marks could receive trademark protection. In Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc., the Court found that Christian Louboutin’s signature red shoe sole was a “distinctive symbol” that had come to represent the brand and deserved trademark status. The Court’s&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-12-18T22:25:28+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>More Than $2.4 Million in Grants Released to 13 Jurisdictions to Combat Intellectual Property Theft</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/more_than_2.4_million_in_grants_released_to_13_jurisdictions_to_combat_inte/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/more_than_2.4_million_in_grants_released_to_13_jurisdictions_to_combat_inte/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Grant to 13 Jurisdictions to Combat IP Theft || 
              More than $2.4 million in grants were released by the United States Department of Justice to 13 jurisdictions to combat the purchase and sale of counterfeit and pirated products. </description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-10-6T01:47:30+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., v. Ly USA: Second Circuit Splits, Allows Attorney’s Fees Under § 1117(c) Trademark Infringement</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ilouis_vuitton_malletier_s.a._v._ly_usa_i_second_circuit_splits_allows_atto/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ilouis_vuitton_malletier_s.a._v._ly_usa_i_second_circuit_splits_allows_atto/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || In a split with the Ninth Circuit, the Second Circuit has held that plaintiffs electing an award of statutory damages for trademark infringement could also receive attorney’s fees in exceptional cases. In Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., v. Ly USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d. Cir. 2012), the Court gave Louis&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-09-5T18:00:21+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Seeks Comment on Possibility of Lowering Most Trademark Application Fees</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_seeks_comment_on_possibility_of_lowering_most_trademark_application_f/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_seeks_comment_on_possibility_of_lowering_most_trademark_application_f/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Notice of Inquiry Regarding Adjustment of Fees for Trademark Applications || 
              The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking public comment on the possibility of adjusting trademark application fees, so as to lower the fees for all applicants willing to file and communicate electronically with the USPTO.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-08-27T20:20:57+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Expands Trademark Law School Pilot Program</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_expands_trademark_law_school_pilot_program/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_expands_trademark_law_school_pilot_program/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Trademark Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program || 
              The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced the selection of nine additional law schools to join the Trademark Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program this fall.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-08-22T19:34:28+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>U.S. Customs and Border Protection Announces IPR Interim Final Rule</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/u.s._customs_and_border_protection_announces_ipr_interim_fina/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/u.s._customs_and_border_protection_announces_ipr_interim_fina/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Disclosure of Information for Certain Intellectual Property Rights Enforced at the Border || 
              The U.S. Customs and Border Protection has published in the Federal Register an Intellectual Property Rights Interim Final Rule (IFR) which takes effect immediately upon publication.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-05-29T21:43:38+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Issues TEAS 4.9 Release</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_issues_teas_4.9_release/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_issues_teas_4.9_release/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || TEAS 4.9 Release || 
              The following highlights most of the changes to be placed into production in TEAS 4.9.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-02-29T19:25:50+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Bicameral, Bipartisan  IP Protection Bill That Will Not Break the Net Filed in Both Chambers</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/bicameral_bipartisan_ip_protection_bill_that_will_not_break_the_net_filed_i/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/bicameral_bipartisan_ip_protection_bill_that_will_not_break_the_net_filed_i/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act   || 
              Rep. Darrell Issa, R&#45;Calif, has officially introduced H.R. 3782, the Online Protection &amp; Enforcement of Digital Trade Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. </description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;proposed&#45;legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-02-8T20:33:05+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Additional Courtesy Electronic Mail Addresses Now Permitted for Trademark Correspondence</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/additional_courtesy_electronic_mail_addresses_now_permitted_for_trademark_c/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/additional_courtesy_electronic_mail_addresses_now_permitted_for_trademark_c/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Additional Courtesy Electronic Mail Addresses || 
              As part of efforts by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to improve the experience of trademark applicants and registrants and to benefit from the advantages of increased electronic processing, effective November 19, 2011, the USPTO began permitting the submission of more than one electronic mail (e&#45;mail) address&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-02-7T22:30:01+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Chloé v. Queen Bee: Exercising Personal Jurisdiction for Infringement in Internet Transactions</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ichloe_v._queen_bee_i_exercising_personal_jurisdiction_for_infringement_in_/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ichloe_v._queen_bee_i_exercising_personal_jurisdiction_for_infringement_in_/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Olivier Taillieu and Jeff Zuber || The Second Circuit recently “updated its jurisprudence” on personal jurisdiction “in the age of internet commerce,” using a long&#45;arm statute to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant accused of selling counterfeit goods over the Internet. In Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158 (2nd Cir.&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2010-11-2T19:51:07+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Expands Consistency Initiative</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_expands_consistency_initiative/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_expands_consistency_initiative/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Continued and Expanded Consistency Initiative || 
              After assessing the Trademark Consistency Initiative Pilot Program, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO,” or “Office”) has decided to extend the program and make two significant changes.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2010-06-25T17:26:35+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Crash Dummy Movie v. Mattel: Overcoming the Presumption of Abandonment</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/icrash_dummy_movie_v._mattel_i_overcoming_the_presumption_of_abandonment/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/icrash_dummy_movie_v._mattel_i_overcoming_the_presumption_of_abandonment/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Olivier A. Taillieu || The Federal Circuit Court affirmed a TTAB decision finding that Mattel successfully rebutted the presumption that it had abandoned a mark it had acquired from Tyco but had not used for at least three years. In Crash Dummy Movie, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 601 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2010), Mattel&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2010-06-8T17:55:12+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Tiffany v. eBay: General Awareness of Mass Infringement Not Enough to Establish Contributory infringement</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/itiffany_v._ebay_i_general_awareness_of_mass_infringement_not_enough_to_est/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/itiffany_v._ebay_i_general_awareness_of_mass_infringement_not_enough_to_est/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Jeff Zuber and Yuri Mikulka || The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed that brand owners are ultimately responsible for policing and fighting counterfeits, even when a high volume of infringement occurs in one outlet. In Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir. 2010), the Second Circuit held that a&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2010-05-10T23:05:21+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>European Union Court Issues Ruling in Trademark Dispute between Google and Louis Vuitton</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/european_union_court_issues_ruling_in_trademark_dispute_between_google_and_/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/european_union_court_issues_ruling_in_trademark_dispute_between_google_and_/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Google France and Google Inc. et al. v Louis Vuitton Malletier et al. || 
              The Court of Justice of the European Union (“Court”) has issued a decision in the trademark dispute between Google and leather&#45;goods maker Louis Vuitton Malletier .</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2010-05-6T17:33:15+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>New Trademark Law Takes Effect</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/new_trademark_law_takes_effect/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/new_trademark_law_takes_effect/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010 || 
              The Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010 became effective on March 17, 2010, Pub. Law No. 111&#45;146, 124 Stat. 66 (2010), according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2010-04-2T17:39:58+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Bill to Ease Burdens on Trademark Owners Set to Become Law After Its Passage in the House and Senate</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/bill_to_ease_burdens_on_trademark_owners_set_to_become_law_after_its_passag/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/bill_to_ease_burdens_on_trademark_owners_set_to_become_law_after_its_passag/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Trademark Law Technical and Conforming Amendments Act  || 
              Legislation authored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D&#45;Vt.) to help assist trademark owners in maintaining the protection of their brands will now head to the President’s desk to be signed into law, after its passage by the House of Representatives and the Senate on March 3, 2010 and January 28, 2010,&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;proposed&#45;legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2010-03-8T18:25:37+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Revises Trademark Practice Rules on Recognition of Reps, and Changing Correspondence Address</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_revises_trademark_practice_rules_on_recognition_of_reps_and_changing_/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_revises_trademark_practice_rules_on_recognition_of_reps_and_changing_/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Changes in Requirements for Signature of Documents, Recognition of Representatives, and Changing Correspondence Address || 
              The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO,” or ‘‘Office’’) has revised the Trademark Rules of Practice to set forth the requirements for signature of documents filed in the Office, recognition of representatives, and establishing and changing the correspondence address in trademark cases.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2010-02-10T19:32:01+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Starbucks v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee:  “Substantial Similarity” Not Required to Prove Dilution by Blurring</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/istarbucks_v._wolfes_borough_coffee_i_substantial_similarity_not_required_t/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/istarbucks_v._wolfes_borough_coffee_i_substantial_similarity_not_required_t/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jan Jensen || The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 (“TDRA”) does not require proof of “substantial similarity” between the marks in question for a trademark owner to establish dilution by blurring. In Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d 97 (2nd&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2010-01-29T22:03:48+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Wham&#45;O v. Manley Toys: No Fed. Jurisdiction to Declare a Mark Nongeneric</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iwham-o_v._manley_toys_i_no_fed._jurisdiction_to_declare_a_mark_nongeneric/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iwham-o_v._manley_toys_i_no_fed._jurisdiction_to_declare_a_mark_nongeneric/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Jeff Zuber and Laura Castner || A California district court dismissed a declaratory judgment action brought by a trademark owner, seeking to skip a TTAB proceeding and get the Court to declare that its trademarks had not become generic and thus subject to cancellation.The Court held that in the absence of an actual infringement claim, there&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-12-31T07:04:27+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: In re Bose: Fed. Cir. Rejects Medinol and Requires Intent to Establish Trademark Fraud</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_bose_i_fed._cir._rejects_imedinol_i_and_requires_intent_to_establish/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_bose_i_fed._cir._rejects_imedinol_i_and_requires_intent_to_establish/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Yuri Mikulka and Laura Castner  || The Federal Circuit held that trademark fraud can only be found when the applicant or registrant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to deceive the PTO. The opinion in In re Bose, ___ F.3d ___, No. 2008&#45;1448, 2009 WL 2709312 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2009), specifically rejects&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-31T01:07:14+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: U.S. v. Diallo: Defining “Use” in the Context of Counterfeiting</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iu.s._v._diallo_i_defining_use_in_the_context_of_counterfeiting/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iu.s._v._diallo_i_defining_use_in_the_context_of_counterfeiting/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Olivier Taillieu and Jeff Zuber || The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that “use,” in the context of federal trademark laws, does not require active employment of a counterfeit mark by displaying or offering an item bearing the mark for sale. In United States of America v. Mamadou Diallo, 575 F.3d 252&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-10-28T07:15:09+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Rescuecom v. Google: Keyword Ad Sales May Constitute “Use in Commerce”</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/irescuecom_v._google_i_keyword_ad_sales_may_constitute_use_in_commerce/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/irescuecom_v._google_i_keyword_ad_sales_may_constitute_use_in_commerce/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Jeff Zuber and Laura Castner || The Second Circuit held that Google’s practice of recommending and selling plaintiff’s exact trademark to Google’s advertisers (including plaintiff’s competitors) in order to trigger ads forms a basis for an actionable claim under sections 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1114 and 1125. Reversing the District&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-07-16T21:59:04+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Internet Specialties v. Milon&#45;DiGiorgio: Raising the Standard for a Laches Defense in Trademark Cases</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iinternet_specialties_v._milan-digiorgio_i_raising_the_standard_for_a_lache/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iinternet_specialties_v._milan-digiorgio_i_raising_the_standard_for_a_lache/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Olivier Taillieu and Laura Castner || In Internet Specialties West v. Milon&#45;DiGiorgio Enterprises, Inc., 559 F.3d 985 (9thCir. 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court&#39;s grant of an injunction prohibiting the use of a registered domain name and mark that was determined to be confusingly similar to a pre&#45;registered&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>trademark</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-07-9T19:00:14+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>