2018 saw a number of important trademark cases decided across the United States. Two cases illustrated the similarities between genericness analysis and one of the likelihood of confusion factors considered by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”). Royal Crown Co., Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2018) showed that there is overlap in the analysis to be conducted under these two different legal theories and provides important lessons for practitioners to remember.
The United States Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential opinion addressing trade dress secondary meaning. The decision establishes a six-factor test to determine whether trade-dress acquired secondary meaning and clarifies a variety of other, related matters.
In a recent precedential decision, a split Federal Circuit (Judges Dyk and Taranto in the majority, Judge Newman, dissenting) issued a lengthy, 53-page decision, regarding the obviousness doctrine. Judge Taranto, writing for the majority, engaged in a fact-intensive analysis to determine that a ‘blocking patent’ mooted evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness and found the patents-in-suit invalid on obviousness grounds.
Recent focus on the United States Supreme Court has surrounded who President Trump will nominate to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. (The nominee is Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit.) However, once October is here, the 2018 Term begins and focus will shift back to the cases before the Court. One of those issues will be the extent that sales (or offers for sale) of an invention before the filing of a patent application will prevent the issuance of a patent. Also known as the ‘on-sale bar’ doctrine, the outcome will have broad implications for startup companies and small businesses holding intellectual property assets.
Shutts & Bowen is pleased to announce that attorneys Aliette DelPozo Rodz and Marcela Lozano have been selected for the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) 2018 Class of Fellows and Pathfinders, respectively.
Shutts and Bowen is proud to announce that twenty two lawyers were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in Orlando’s Best Lawyers 2018. The list was published in the Orlando Magazine April 2018 edition. This list is excerpted from the 2017 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for 2018.
Trade secrets, together with patents, trademarks, and copyrights, are one of the four main types of intellectual property. Unlike the three other types of IP, trade secrets are never made public. Trademarks and service marks are obtainable only through public use that creates an association between the mark and the origin of specific goods or services in the minds of the consumer. Copyrights are generally agnostic to publicity, but most copyrighted material is shown publicly in some form. While public disclosure before filing a patent application can destroy your patent rights, if your patent application is allowed it will always be made public. Public disclosure of your trade secret will destroy it – they’re like vampires, they live in the shadows and any exposure to light will kill them.
William McCullough has rejoined Shutts & Bowen LLP as a partner in its Corporate Practice Group in the firm’s Miami office. Mr. McCullough, who previously practiced with Shutts & Bowen for about 20 years, returns after four years as a partner in the Miami office of Holland & Knight LLP.
McCullough’s return coincides with that of partner Kimberly Prior, who rejoined Shutts & Bowen last week after two years as a partner with the Miami office of Baker McKenzie.
The utilization by local governments of public-private deals, otherwise known as public-private partnerships or P3s, continued to grow in popularity over the course of 2017. We expect that popularity to continue as more and more local governments become familiar with and experience the benefits of such projects.