Search for: "In re: Brunetti"
Results 1 - 20
of 106
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2018, 6:12 am
In re Brunetti, 125 USPQ2d 1072 (Fed. [read post]
18 Sep 2018, 6:12 am
In re Brunetti, 125 USPQ2d 1072 (Fed. [read post]
31 May 2018, 4:40 am
The CAFC denied re-hearing on April 12, 2018. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 3:07 am
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Brunetti, 125 USPQ2d 1072 (Fed. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 7:31 am
He's posted a draft of his findings, called FUCT® – An Early Empirical Study of Trademark Registration of Scandalous and Immoral Marks Aftermath of the In re Brunetti Decision, on SSRN:This article seeks to create an early empirical benchmark on registrations of marks that would have failed registration as “scandalous” or “immoral” under Lanham Act Section 2(a) before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s In re… [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 1:44 pm
(Actually, Brunetti has said in recent interviews that they’re now sold exclusively online, with new products each month that usually sell out within days. [read post]
4 Apr 2018, 8:04 pm
by Dennis Crouch In the FUCT case (In re Brunetti), the Federal Circuit mooted the Lanham Act’s prohibition against registering immoral or scandalous marks — holding the limitation to be an unconstitutional restriction of free speech and reversing the TTAB holding that Bruneti’s “FUCT” mark is unregistrable. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 8:06 am
Supreme Court was not about to insert itself in the legislative role and re-write the statute. [read post]
14 Jul 2022, 7:05 pm
In this case, In re: Steve Elster, the U.S. [read post]
26 Dec 2017, 9:18 am
In re Brunetti, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision affirming a refusal to register the mark “FUCT” because it comprised immoral or scandalous matter under 15 U.S.C. [read post]
14 Jul 2019, 4:22 am
Tension Between § 2(a) of the Lanham Act and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; In re Brunetti After Brunetti filed his appeal to the Federal Circuit but before oral arguments were heard, the Supreme Court ruled in the Matal v. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 7:25 pm
Gov’t Letter Br. 14, In re Brunetti, No. 15-1109,Docket No. 60 (Fed. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 9:14 am
If you're in need of a Spring Break read with a counterfeit chic theme, check out Donna Leon's Blood from a Stone. [read post]
29 Aug 2022, 5:00 am
In re Erik Brunetti, 2022 USPQ2d 764 (TTAB 2022) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark Lebow). [read post]
26 Dec 2017, 9:18 am
In re Brunetti, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision affirming a refusal to register the mark “FUCT” because it comprised immoral or scandalous matter under 15 U.S.C. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 3:10 am
"Scandalousness: The FUCT appeal (In re Brunetti), which challenges the constitutionality of the scandalousness provision of Section 2(a) is currently suspended at the CAFC. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 1:51 am
I’m not talking about those kinds of four letter words (by the way, we’re still awaiting the Brunetti decision to learn their fate), so today I’m talking about this wholesome kind: Inquiring minds may wonder (and interested alumni) how the University of Iowa might go about owning federally-registered rights in the word IOWA to convert that ™ symbol to an ® symbol? [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 1:51 am
I’m not talking about those kinds of four letter words (by the way, we’re still awaiting the Brunetti decision to learn their fate), so today I’m talking about this wholesome kind: Inquiring minds may wonder (and interested alumni) how the University of Iowa might go about owning federally-registered rights in the word IOWA to convert that ™ symbol to an ® symbol? [read post]
20 Apr 2019, 3:22 pm
Donald Trump tried to trademark the phrase, “You’re fired,” but his application was rejected. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 2:21 am
Any suspension of an application based on the scandalousness provision of Section 2(a) will remain in place until the Federal Circuit issues a decision in Brunetti, after which the USPTO will re-evaluate the need for further suspension. [read post]
