According to the USPTO's motion, "intervention is warranted because the district court’s decision in this trademark case raises questions of institutional importance to the Patent and Trademark Office and because it misunderstands the manner in which the Lanham Act implements provisions regarding well-known marks in the Paris Convention"
The Director seeks to exercise her unconditional statutory right to intervene, 15 U.S.C. §1071(b)(2), to vindicate the Patent and Trademark Office’s interest in ensuring the proper application of the Lanham Act to a claim by the owner of a foreign trademark with goodwill among United States consumers that the owner of a domestic mark has misrepresented the source of its goods and has engaged in false association and false advertising. The district court held that such claims could be asserted only by someone with a protectable interest in a mark that has been used in commerce within the United States. That holding is inconsistent with the Lanham Act and fails to appreciate the manner in which that statute implements Paris Convention provisions regarding well-known marks.
Claiming that the PTO Director has interests adverse to both parties to the litigation, it seeks permission to file a separate brief.
Read comments and post your comment here
TTABlog note: Caveat: Marty Schwimmer and I represent Belmora in this appeal.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2015.

No comments:
Post a Comment