Settling a circuit split, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, has concluded that a trademark licensee’s rights are not automatically terminated when a debtor in bankruptcy rejects the license agreement.
The case, Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC (Mission Product), arose from a pre-bankruptcy trademark license agreement between Tempnology, LLC, the bankrupt debtor, and Mission Product Holdings, Inc. (Mission), which was granted a non-exclusive license to use Tempnology’s “Coolcore” trademarks. During the bankruptcy, Tempnology “rejected” the trademark license in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code. The Court held that, because rejection under the Bankruptcy Code operates only as a breach and not a rescission, the rejection did not deprive Mission of its right to use the trademarks under the license. Continue Reading
While in some jurisdictions the concept of a “patent attorney” or also a “patent judge”, referring to persons who not only have knowledge of patent law but also acquire technical expertise in relation to patents, is common, this is not the case in Greece. Of course, there are lawyers with high-level expertise in patent law, as well as sections of the Courts that try cases related to industrial property law. At the same time though, the technical issues of disputed patents are mostly assessed by technical experts who the parties, as well as the Court, may each appoint in order to assist the Court to reach a decision in each case.
Under the Federal Law “On drugs circulation” (Law), 
The descendants of a well-known Danish scientist could not prevent the commercial use of the name ØRSTED as a trademark, domain and company name by the Ørsted Group (former Dong Energy A/S).
2018 saw a number of important trademark cases decided across the United States. Two cases illustrated the similarities between genericness analysis and one of the likelihood of confusion factors considered by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”). Royal Crown Co., Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2018) showed that there is overlap in the analysis to be conducted under these two different legal theories and provides important lessons for practitioners to remember.
Suppose that you want to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods or services for your business. What if the trademark is immoral or scandalous? Should you register your scandalous trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? The answer may be YES!
Are apples different from pears? Or are they both just fruit? Or, as cockney rhyming slang would have it, are they stairs? These are the questions (excepting the last one) that the distinguished judges of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEU) have been gr-apple-ing with in the recent case of Pear Technologies v EUIPO – Apple [2019] EUECJ T-215/17. Aside from offering opportunities for highly amusing wordplay, this recent decision includes some useful guidance on the CJEU’s approach to the visual and conceptual comparison of signs in trade mark disputes.
Apple, the technology giant which runs successful Apple Stores all over the world, announced that it will close its only two stores in eastern Texas by Friday, April 12. 