The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has released its “ADVANCED PRACTICE TIPS FROM THE TTAB,” tips for the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB). It provides “an overview of operations with which those appearing before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board) are most likely to interact.” The link is here: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/454850/TTAB%20Tips%202017%20Revised%20Feb.%207-1.pdf.
It was bound to happen that someone would take a swipe at Google, claiming that the registered trademark should be cancelled because people use the word as a verb in a “generic” and “indiscriminate” way, which constitutes “genericide.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the effort. Here is a synopsis of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, as posted by Justia:
“U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Opinions
Elliott v. Google, Inc.
Opinion Date: May 16, 2017
Judge: Richard C. Tallman
Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Internet Law, Trademark
A claim of genericness or “genericide,” where the public appropriates a trademark and uses it as a generic name for particular types of goods or services irrespective of its source, must be made with regard to a particular type of good or service. Plaintiffs petitioned for cancellation of the GOOGLE trademark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1064(3), based on the ground that it is generic. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Google, Inc., holding that plaintiffs failed to recognize that a claim of genericide must always relate to a particular type of good or service, and that plaintiffs erroneously assumed that verb use automatically constitutes generic use; the district court correctly framed its inquiry as whether the primary significance of the word “google” to the relevant public was as a generic name for internet search engines or as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular; the assumption that a majority of the public uses the verb “google” in a generic and indiscriminate sense, on its own, could not support a jury finding of genericide under the primary significance test; and plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence in this case to support a jury finding that the relevant public primarily understands the word “google” as a generic name for internet search engines and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular.
You can read the entire opinion here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/…/opini…/2017/05/16/15-15809.pdf.
Eric Goldman’s analysis can be found here: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/…/google-gets-big-ninth-circuit…
Here is a synopsis from the State Bar Trusts & Estates Section of an interesting case dealing with Trusts and Estates and the Court’s equitable power to charge the costs of attorneys fees incurred in defending a claim that is unfounded and brought in bad faith:
Pizarro v. Reynoso
Filed January 18, 2017, Third District
Cite as C077594
Melissa Reynoso served as trustee of her grandfather’s trust. The trust authorized Reynoso to sell real property to her mother, Karen Bartholomew, for $100,000 below the property’s appraised value. Reynoso agreed to help Bartholomew purchase the property. Reynoso obtained a personal loan, conveyed the property to Bartholomew, and the trust received the loan proceeds. Bartholomew’s son, Anthony Pizarro, and brother, Keith Jensen, filed petitions alleging that Reynoso breached her fiduciary duties, and that the sale must be set aside as a sham. During the litigation, Bartholomew turned against Reynoso and knowingly testified falsely. The trial court denied the petitions, finding the sale was valid and Reynoso did not breach her fiduciary duties. Additionally, exercising its equitable power over trusts, the trial court charged Bartholomew’s and Jensen’s shares of the trust with Reynoso’s attorney fees and costs. To the extent their trust shares were insufficient, the trial court held Bartholomew, Jenson, and Pizarro personally liable for the fees and costs.
The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Pizarro forfeited any arguments on appeal concerning the sale because his brief lacked clarity and failed to follow appellate procedure. The court properly exercised its equitable power to charge Reynoso’s attorney fees and costs against Bartholomew’s and Jensen’s trust shares. The court has the equitable power to charge a beneficiary’s share with the trustee’s attorney fees and costs if the beneficiary, in bad faith, brings an unfounded proceeding. While Bartholomew did not bring the petition, the court had the equitable power to charge her trust share because she took an unfounded position and acted in bad faith. However, the court could not order the litigants to personally pay the attorney fees and costs because such an order is beyond the court’s equitable power over trusts.
Our Santa Barbara firm is growing, and we are looking to immediately hire a full-time, career oriented attorney with 3 – 14 years’ experience to join the team. We have an eclectic practice, the foci of which are entertainment (filmed entertainment, music, publishing, and licensing), non-patent intellectual property (trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets), Internet, business, and litigation in state and federal courts. We work with entrepreneurs, start-ups, and maturing companies, serving as outside general counsel, and represent a wide variety of businesses, including multi-media companies, music publishing companies, film and music producers, artists, photographers, songwriters, and others. We are looking for someone wanting a high quality, high energy, low key environment, who values relationships, innovation, and technology; is resourceful; and operates (or is willing to operate) on the principle that “THERE IS NO BOX.” Law review, great writing skills, and/or equivalent problem-solving and collaboration skills are highly valued here. We are willing and able to mentor the right person in any areas that may be needed. A book of business (small, medium, or large) is welcomed, although not necessary. This position is open now. Please let us know if you are the right person or know someone who is. You may send resumes and writing samples to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please view our website at mbergerlaw.com and our LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewberger/ for more information about who we are and what we do.
As of January 1, 2017, California beauty salons and barber shops in good standing with the State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology are permitted to serve their customers no more than 12 ounces of beer or 6 ounces of wine by the glass for no charge, providing that it is consistent with local zoning. Of course, that permission does not extend to selling wine or beer, unless the salon or barber shop holds an appropriate beer or wine license issued by the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC).
As you might have guessed, barber shops and salons are treated as consumers, and can only purchase beer and wine from persons or companies that are legally licensed to sell to consumers, like licensed retailers and other licensees with retail privileges, such as licensed wineries and breweries.
The licensing process in California is challenging, especially to even understand what type of license or licenses are required. Please make certain the you obtain qualified and knowledgeable assistance to ensure compliance with applicable rules and law. One thing is likely: people probably won’t seem to mind the wait next time they visit their salon or barber shop.
The Net Neutrality Rules have been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-appeals-court-rejects-challenge-obama-net-neutrality-142305055–finance.html?ref=gs. It appears that everyone on the Internet is going to get to be treated the same.