TTAB Vacates HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA Decision, Following District Court Order
The Board issued an Order yesterday vacating its HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA decision, in compliance with the February 23, 2016 Order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama [TTABlogged here]. The Director of the USPTO specifically reserved the right to seek further review of the orders and opinions of the district court in this matter. The full Order issued by the Board is set out below. The Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama and Paul W. Bryant, Jr. v. William Pitts, Jr. and Christopher Blackburn, Opposition No. 91187103 (March 3, 2016) [not precedential].
Pursuant to the settlement of Opposers’ appeal, resulting in the consent judgment the parties agreed to and obtained approval of in Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Houndstooth Mafia Enters., LLC, No. 7:13-cv-1736-RDP (N. D. Ala.), and the district court’s February 23, 2016 order requiring the Board to vacate its July 23, 2013 opinion, that opinion is vacated. The application is remanded to the examining attorney to update the owner information to reflect the assignment of the application to the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama (recorded at Reel/Frame 5285/0632) and allow the application to proceed to registration. Opposers’ pending motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) is dismissed as moot. The Director of the USPTO specifically reserves the right to seek further review of the orders and opinions of the district court in this matter.
Read comments and post your comment here.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2016.
posted by John L. Welch @ 3/04/2016
2 comments
2 Comments:
Makes sense to me. Was a pretty clear case of unfair competition that got resolved in a federal court where Bear Bryant and his Houndstooth hat are iconic and famous.
for the life of me I can't understand why the PTO should care about this outcome. We here constantly that each case must be decided upon its own facts, etc. SO why should the PTO leave such a not so veiled threat? This was a local issue and, like Bush v Gore, should not be precedential for anything -
The Director of the USPTO specifically reserves the right to seek further review of the orders and opinions of the district court in this matter.
"Was a pretty clear case of unfair competition that got resolved in a federal court where Bear Bryant and his Houndstooth hat are iconic and famous."
Except that isn't what the District Court said. The District Court apparently found no facts or interpretation of the law establishing the fame of the mark. The Court found no error in the TTAB's review. Instead, the Court allowed the LITIGANTS to determine what decision the evidence and the law should have prompted, and imposed the LITIGANTS' decision on the TTAB. And vacating the decision was not necessary to grant the litigants what they were requesting - transfer of ownership of the mark to the University and subsequent registration. That would happen as a normal outcome of the assignment of the mark to the University.
Post a Comment
<< Home