Last week, AppDetex attended the IACC conference in Orlando, Florida. With an emphasis on Latin America and the ongoing challenge of brand protection across the globe, the conference highlighted not only the issues associated with the distribution of counterfeit products across South America but also many of the ongoing challenges of border jurisdiction as well as solid IP law and policy.
Last week, AppDetex participated in the Anti-Counterfeiting and Brand Protection Summit in San Francisco. The annual event is in its 20th year. And while the round-table discussions and lectures covered a wide variety of topics, the focus was on the future of anti-counterfeiting and brand protection efforts across the globe. Below is a quick overview.
Topics: anti-counterfeiting, trademark infringement, brand protection service, intellectual property protection, knockoff, e-commerce, intellectual property, intellectual property, trademark, copyright, trademarks, copyright, Online Shopping
In a decision last week, the US Trial and Appeal Board, rejected General Mills’ application to trademark the color yellow on its Cheerios cereal boxes.
Trademarking colors is a relatively new thing. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed “color as a trademark” but only in specific instances. The Court said the public must strongly associate the color with the specific product and the color trademark is only applicable within the industry it’s filed in.
In June of 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) cancelled six trademarks of the Washington Redskins (Redskins) name and logos. At the heart of the cancellation was the argument that the name Redskins was a disparaging term to Native Americans, and therefore violated the Lanham Act.
Attorneys for the NFL appealed the decision but the case was put on hold by the U.S. Court of Appeals. A recent ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court may make it easier for the NFL to win that appeal. With the recent case Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that application of the Lanham Act was in fact, a violation of the First Amendment and the right to free speech.