Thursday, July 24, 2008
When Not to Assign Intent-to-Use Applications
The TTABlog reports on a successful trademark opposition because of an invalid assignment of an intent-to-use application. I mentioned yesterday that U.S. trademarks can be assigned without any tangible assets, but the U.S. trademark system has a carve-out for intent-to-use applications - they can't be assigned without at least part of the ongoing business to which the trademark pertains. The TTABlog tells the story of some New Mexico government agencies who didn't appear to be aware of that.
Labels:
assignment,
intent-to-use,
trademark
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
►
2011
(85)
-
►
December
(10)
- Walter Mercado Still Losing
- Just Another Skirmish or the War?
- Giving An Idea to Your Employer
- Beneficial Owners Don't Have Standing
- Zombie Department Stores Rise (as ugly t-shirts)
- Must All Trademark Owners be Joined?
- Who Owns the Mark Used by a Bunch of People?
- Bratz Copied, But Didn't Infringe
- When You Can Change the Name of the Registrant
- It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time
-
►
December
(10)
-
▼
2008
(95)
-
▼
July
(21)
- Lesson Learned
- Mrs. Butterworth's Right of Publicity
- Oklahoma City or Seattle Supersonics?
- More Bratz
- Who Owns a Dead Mark? Ask River West Brands
- POLAROID
- When Not to Assign Intent-to-Use Applications
- Invention Made for Hire
- Assigning "Goodwill"
- Who Owns the Mark?
- Sold! Or Just Licensed?
- Mattel Wins Bratz!
- Combining Trademarks in a Jointly Owned Holdco
- Exclusive Licensee Doesn't Have Standing, No Matte...
- Lassie Speaks!
- Works Are Never Made for Hire
- Ownership of Music in Snow White
- Warner/Chappell Still Happy on Birthdays
- Summer Reading
- Hot N' Ready For All
- Devil in the Details
-
▼
July
(21)
0 comments:
Post a Comment