Library Search
-
Intellectual Property in M&A Transactions: What Diligence is Due? ( August 2003 )
Concern about intellectual property issues in M&A transactions has been growing. The importance of intellectual property and how it will be handled is dependent on the facts of each transaction, but since due diligence is simply an investigation into the status of a business, it includes discovery or confirmation about what’s right and what’s wrong as evidenced in patents and trademarks. This article focuses on those due diligence issues. -
It's No Secret - The Supreme Court Rules on the Federal Trademark Dilution Act ( August 2003 )
The United States Supreme Court does not accept many trademark cases for review, and so on those rare occasions when the Court interprets the Lanham Act, trademark lawyers and their clients are usually eager to read what the Court has to say. -
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is Not "Bullish" On Dilution ( August 2003 )
In 1999, the Trademark Amendments Act revised the Lanham Act to add dilution as ground for opposing an application or canceling a registration before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. -
Recognition of Well-Known Trademarks ( August 2003 )
Most countries do not process applications for recognition of well-known trademarks unless owners of such trademarks have demonstrated a need for such recognition, and most countries do not have a separate or independent application procedure for recognition of well-known trademarks. -
Taking Care of Business Names and Logos ( June 2003 )
Whether your company sells goods or provides services, chances are you have invested in one or more names and logos that the consuming public associates with your offerings. You spend time and money to differentiate your goods or services from those of your competitors and to generate goodwill in your names and logos (formally called "trademarks," "service marks," or just "marks"). -
Supreme Court Opinion Rules that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") Requires Proof of Actual Dilution ( March 2003 )
In a surprising decision with important ramifications for owners of famous trademarks, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 4, 2003 that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act ("FTDA") requires proof of actual dilution. <i>Mosely v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.</i>, No. 01-1015. Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, concluded that the FTDA "unambiguously requires a showing of actual dilution, rather than a likelihood of dilution." -
U.S. Supreme Court Dilution Case -- Victoria's Secret ( March 2003 )
On March 4, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to famous trademarks. In a unanimous ruling against Victoria Secret in its claim against a mom and pop Kentucky store selling lingerie and adult novelties under the brand "Victor's Little Secret", the court required a showing of actual damage from "blurring and eroding the distinctiveness" of the famous mark. -
I Know It When I See It: A Practitioner's Guide To Identifying Third Party Trademarks That Are Likely To Dilute ( October 2002 )
<i>Dilution</i>. To a chemist, it refers to the process of reducing the concentration of a solute in solution, usually simply by mixing with more solvent. But to a trademark lawyer, it is the raison de'etre for the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), which provides in part that the owner of a famous mark is entitled to relief against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark, "if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark." -
Frequently Asked Questions About Trademarks ( January 2002 )
This document defines trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks and answers basic questions about registering trademarks. -
Catch A Tiger By The Tail: Guarding Trademarks As Your Business Expands ( December 2000 )
While White and Williams can't guarantee that a predatory tiger won't spring from the commercial underbrush to threaten a client?s treasured trademark, some preventive legal medicine can help avoid an unfortunate surprise attack. One prescription is to plan carefully when you use your existing trademark in a new business sector.
Ads by FindLaw