Friday, May 21, 2010

Another TTABlogger Article: "Fraud and the TTAB: What Hath Bose Wrought?"

In connection with my talk on fraud yesterday at the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC) meeting, I provided a paper entitled, "Fraud at the TTAB: What Hath Bose Wrought?" Unlike the article that I posted yesterday, this one focuses only on fraud.

Additional thought: Suppose that when the TTAB decided Medinol, it had simply declared the NEURO VASX registration void ab initio because it stemmed from a false verification? In other words, suppose the Board had never started down the fraud path that led to the Bose decision?

When an applicant files a use-based application but has not used the mark on any of the identified goods or services, the Board will declare the application void ab initio. When an applicant files an I-T-U application but cannot prove a bona fide intent to use the mark, the Board will find that application void ab initio. So why not do the same thing when an applicant files a false declaration in a Medinol type situation, where the mark has been used on some but not all of the listed goods? That would avoid the whole "intent" problem that now plagues the Board and trademark practitioners when applying fraud principles.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2010.


At 10:05 AM, Anonymous Dave Purdue said...

I don't know how Mr. Dreitler would feel about this idea (well, I have some idea how he would feel), but you have put into words something that has been rattling around in my head trying to get out. We don't need to get bogged down in just how bad your intent was - if your statement is/was false, the document in which you made the false statement should ultimately be given no effect. Thanks, John. Where do you go from here with this?


Post a Comment

<< Home