BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Trademark and Copyright

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Tuesday, July 9, 2024

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$347.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will guide trademark counsel in understanding how examining attorneys at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and panels at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decide the issue of likelihood of confusion as it relates to trademark applications. The panel will outline approaches that work--and those that don't work--for avoiding or overcoming refusals under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.

Faculty

Patrick J. Gallagher
Partner
Barnes & Thornburg

Mr. Gallagher has deep experience in trademark clearance, investigation, prosecution, as well as client counseling and management of domestic and international trademark portfolios. He also has significant experience assisting clients with trademark enforcement, opposition and cancellation proceedings; brand protection programs; trademark, unfair competition and false advertising disputes and litigation; internet domain name disputes and proceedings (UDRPs); and trademark licensing. He provides tailored advice for handling IP issues involving social media; IP due diligence and IP licensing; copyright counseling, registration, protection and litigation; Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice and take down procedures; and domain name acquisition.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Draeke H. Weseman
Of Counsel
Greenberg Traurig LLP

Mr. Weseman helps brands by applying his knowledge of trademark law, enhanced by years of experience, to complex trademark problems and communicating advice to clients simply, in plain language, with a focus on business outcomes.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

Under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, examining attorneys may refuse registration of a mark that so resembles an already registered mark that a consumer is likely to be confused as to the source of the products or services of the applicant. Determining the likelihood of confusion is made by applying the 13 factors outlined in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Some key factors are the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the goods or services, the similarity of established trade channels, the strength of the registered mark, the sophistication of purchasers, and the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods and services.

Before filing, trademark counsel should evaluate facts and make critical decisions to avoid refusal under Section 2(d). After an application is filed, if it is refused under Section 2(d), trademark counsel often have several options for overcoming such refusals. Frequently, trademark counsel mistakenly defaults only to arguing for coexistence, without considering the other options that might be available. For example, the registered mark may be abandoned or registered for an overbroad identification of goods or services. In that case, counsel may be able to petition for cancellation or partial cancellation of the mark and avoid arguing for coexistence altogether.

Listen as our authoritative panel examines the key du Pont factors, discusses strategies for avoiding refusal, and explores opportunities for responding to rejections under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.

Outline

  1. History, purpose, and fundamental principles of Section 2(d)
  2. The du Pont factors for determining the likelihood of confusion
  3. Best practices for avoiding a Section 2(d) refusal
  4. Strategies for overcoming refusals under Section 2(d)
  5. Examples from recent TTAB decisions

Benefits

The panel will review these and other relevant issues:

  • What strategies have trademark applicants used successfully to show the lack of confusion and obtain trademark protection despite Section 2(d) refusals?
  • How are the USPTO examining attorneys and the Board treating evidence for and against the likelihood of confusion?
  • What best practices should counsel employ to avoid or overcome Section 2(d) refusals?