Intellectual Property News and Reports

A term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers. Pp. 6–14. (a) Whether a compound term is generic turns on whether that term, taken as... Read more →

Held: Because Marcel’s 2011 Action challenged different conduct—and raised different claims—from the 2005 Action, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky Brand from raising new defenses. Pp. 6–12. (a) This case asks whether so-called “defense preclusion” is a valid application of res judicata:... Read more →

Inter partes review is an administrative process that permits a patent challenger to ask the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider the validity of earlier granted patent claims. For inter partes review to proceed, the agency must agree... Read more →

A plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to a profits award. The Lanham Act provision governing remedies for trademark violations, §1117(a), makes a showing... Read more →

Held: Congress lacked authority to abrogate the States’ immunity from copyright infringement suits in the CRCA. Pp. 4–17. (a) In general, a federal court may not hear a suit brought by any person against a nonconsenting State. But such suits... Read more →

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. The PTO cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel under §145. Pp. 3–10. (a) The “American Rule”—the bedrock principle that “[e]ach litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose,... Read more →

Held: The Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral[ ] or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, this Court declared unconstitutional the Lanham Act’s ban on registering marks that “disparage” any “person[... Read more →

US Supreme Court holds that the Government is not a “person” capable of instituting the three AIA review proceedings in Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service. Download Return Mail Inc. v. Postal Service Read more →

Petitioner Mission Product Holdings, Inc., entered into a contract with Respondent Tempnology, LLC, which gave Mission a license to use Tempnology’s trademarks in connection with the distribution of certain clothing and accessories. Tempnology filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sought... Read more →

Held: The term “full costs” in §505 of the Copyright Act means the costs specified in the general costs statute codified at §§1821 and 1920. Pp. 3–12. (a) Sections 1821 and 1920 define what the term “costs” encompasses in subject-specific... Read more →