data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/964f8/964f83b0d8d49bfcff3aa2f7d38949e06d2713a5" alt=""
INCONTESTABILITY
April 24, 2013data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/964f8/964f83b0d8d49bfcff3aa2f7d38949e06d2713a5" alt=""
Starting a Trademark Prosecution Practice at an Existing Law Firm
April 24, 2013FRAUD
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/964f8/964f83b0d8d49bfcff3aa2f7d38949e06d2713a5" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/52f96/52f962b6b030940a0f05f66a5c6dd0a5f441ee12" alt=""
The pendulum is swinging away from the applicability of fraud as a favored basis to challenge a third party claim that it is currently using a mark in U.S. commerce. Fraud concerns reached their height in Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1205 (T.T.A.B. 2003). The article “In re Bose Corporation – The Federal Circuit Overturns the Standard for Fraud in Trademark Cancellation and Opposition Proceedings,” published in the Westchester County Bar Association Newsletter, Nov. 2009, identifies a shift in the pendulum back to a more relaxed standard.