<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Intellectual Property Law Blog &#124; HDP Magazine by Harness Dickey&#187; Trademarks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hdp.com/category/trademarks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.hdp.com</link>
	<description>Official blog by Harness Dickey, an international and full-service intellectual property legal firm with four locations in the US. Get up-to-date IP info here!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:44:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO Issues 239346 Trademark Registrations on 2011</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/uspto-issues-239346-trademark-registrations-on-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/uspto-issues-239346-trademark-registrations-on-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:10:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The USPTO issued 239346 trademark registrations in 2011. The most active trademark classes are Class 9 – scientific and electronic apparatus (24,590); Class 16 – printed matter (9692); Class 25 – clothing (14,355). The most active service mark classes are Class 35 – advertising and business (26,542); Class 41 – education and entertainment (23335); and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/uspto-issues-239346-trademark-registrations-on-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TTAB: Prompt Filing of Supplemental Response Cures Procedural Deficiency in Expert Disclosures</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/ttab-prompt-filing-of-supplemental-response-cures-procedural-deficiency-in-expert-disclosures/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/ttab-prompt-filing-of-supplemental-response-cures-procedural-deficiency-in-expert-disclosures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 20:07:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1227</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TTAB: Prompt Filing of Supplemental Response Cures Procedural Deficiency in Expert Disclosures The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) held that Respondent’s timely-filed expert testimony should not be excluded for procedural deficiencies when those deficiencies were promptly corrected before the close of discovery. Gen. Council of the Assemblies of God dba Gospel Publishing House v. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/ttab-prompt-filing-of-supplemental-response-cures-procedural-deficiency-in-expert-disclosures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Filing Separate Section 8 and Section 15 Declarations</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/filing-separate-section-8-and-section-15-declarations/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/filing-separate-section-8-and-section-15-declarations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:53:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Garrett C. Donley</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1073</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Trademark practitioners commonly submit Combined Section 8 &#38; 15 Affidavits or Declarations for maintaining U.S. trademark registrations. However, there are times when such a combined version of this submission is not proper, which requires an understanding of the different purposes for the “Section 8” and “Section 15” submissions. Section 8 of the United States Lanham [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/filing-separate-section-8-and-section-15-declarations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google Fights Off Another Trademark Attack on its AdWords Program</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/google-fights-off-another-trademark-attack-on-its-adwords-program/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/google-fights-off-another-trademark-attack-on-its-adwords-program/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth K. Brock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Three months after dismissing a trademark infringement suit filed against search engine giant Google Inc., the judge in the case issued a memorandum opinion explaining his decision. (Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc., Case No. 1:09cv736 (E.D. Va. Aug. 3, 2010).) In July 2009, language learning software company Rosetta Stone filed suit in the Eastern [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/google-fights-off-another-trademark-attack-on-its-adwords-program/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leaner and Greener: ICANN Announces (Almost) Paperless UDRP Procedures</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/leaner-and-greener-icann-announces-almost-paperless-udrp-procedures/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/leaner-and-greener-icann-announces-almost-paperless-udrp-procedures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth K. Brock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1053</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On December 7, 2009, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced a modification to the Implementation Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This modification now permits electronic filing. In fact, beginning March 1, 2010, electronic filing will be mandatory. The UDRP is an administrative dispute resolution policy designed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/leaner-and-greener-icann-announces-almost-paperless-udrp-procedures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Picture Is Not a Mandatory Requirement for a Website-Based Specimen of Use Submitted with Trademark Application</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/picture-is-not-a-mandatory-requirement-for-a-website-based-specimen-of-use-submitted-with-trademark-application/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/picture-is-not-a-mandatory-requirement-for-a-website-based-specimen-of-use-submitted-with-trademark-application/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:54:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=646</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal Circuit reverses Trademark Office’s holding that an internet specimen of use must include a picture of the goods to be registrable. In re Michael Sones, Docket No. 2009-1140 (Dec. 23, 2009) In re Sones is an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“TTAB”) rejection of Michael Sones’ registration application for the mark [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/picture-is-not-a-mandatory-requirement-for-a-website-based-specimen-of-use-submitted-with-trademark-application/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trademark Cancellation Proceeding</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/trademark-cancellation-proceeding/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/trademark-cancellation-proceeding/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Trademark Cancellation Proceeding: Presumption Of Validity For Section 2(f) Registration Includes Presumption Of Acquired Distinctiveness; Record Automatically Includes Application File The Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., No. 2009-1172 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2009) Federal Circuit reversed Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of Appellant’s mark holding that: 1) arguments [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/trademark-cancellation-proceeding/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tampering with UPCs Can Constitute Trademark Infringement</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/tampering-with-upcs-can-constitute-trademark-infringement/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/tampering-with-upcs-can-constitute-trademark-infringement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:49:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth K. Brock</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Counterfeits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 19, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that selling an otherwise genuine product with the trademark holder’s unique production code (UPC) altered or removed can constitute trademark infringement. Zino Davidoff SA v. CVS Corp., 571 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2009). Defendant CVS Corporation, a drugstore chain, appealed the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/trademarks/tampering-with-upcs-can-constitute-trademark-infringement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Clarifies Fraud Standard in Trademark Cases</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/federal-circuit-clarifies-fraud-standard-in-trademark-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/federal-circuit-clarifies-fraud-standard-in-trademark-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew L. Cutler</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Court Overrules Medinol: In re Bose Corporation (Decided August 31, 2009) During the last six years, many an unwary trademark registrant has fallen victim to the harsh decision handed down by the USPTO&#8217;s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (&#8220;Board&#8221;) in the 2003 case entitled Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, Inc.   In Medinol, the Board held [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/federal-circuit-clarifies-fraud-standard-in-trademark-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An IP Fight Broke Out At the ‘Canes Hockey Game</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/an-ip-fight-broke-out-at-the-%e2%80%98canes-hockey-game/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/an-ip-fight-broke-out-at-the-%e2%80%98canes-hockey-game/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:44:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David McClaughry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hip-hop artist Tye Banks wrote and recorded the song “Carolina Hurricanes” after the Carolina Hurricanes won the Stanley Cup in 2006. In 2007, Banks and Hurricane management had an informal agreement that provided for the use of Banks’ song in connection with Hurricane hockey which lasted for a time. Now the gloves are off. Banks [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/an-ip-fight-broke-out-at-the-%e2%80%98canes-hockey-game/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

