Tuesday, May 04, 2010

TTAB Vacates "WAL-VERT" Decision Per District Court Order

In an April 21, 2010 ruling (here), the Board vacated its decision in Wyeth v. Walgreen Co., Opposition No. 91165912 (August 5, 2008) [not precedential]. [TTABlogged here]. A divided Board panel had sustained Wyeth's opposition to registration of the mark WAL-VERT for "antihistamines and allergy relief preparations," finding it likely to cause confusion with Opposer's registered mark ALAVERT for allergy relief and antihistamine preparations.

Walgreen appealed the TTAB decision to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [TTABlogged here]. The district court, in a February 1, 2010 order (here), directed the Board to vacate its decision, to deem Application Serial No. 76594301 withdrawn (abandoned) with prejudice, and to dismiss the opposition as moot, all in accordance with an agreement of the parties to settle the civil action. [The parties joint motion for vacatur may be found here.]

TTABlog comment: I can think of one reason why Walgreen would want the TTAB decision vacated: to eliminate any collateral estoppel effect vis-a-vis any findings of the Board. Can you think of any other reasons?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2010.


At 9:27 AM, Anonymous mcvooty said...

A more interesting question to my mind is whether the settlement allows Walmart to continue to use the mark WAL-VERT?


Post a Comment

<< Home