When jack-o’-lanterns begin to glow and youngsters chart out their candy-collecting routes, an often-overlooked trend takes over every October: the Halloween commercial extravaganza! Beneath the shadows of ghouls and goblins, a profitable domain emerges for candy makers and costume creators. Yet, it’s not just about commerce; the essence of innovation is very much alive in

In a recent post, we discussed whether patent applications could provide insight into the blueprints of extraterrestrial spacecraft. Yet, an enigmatic question looms large: would the powers that be genuinely consider patenting such advanced technology, fully aware that patent applications might see the light of day? Or might there be a more clandestine approach, a proverbial cloak of invisibility wielded by the men in black?

Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, federal law prevents the disclosure of new technologies and inventions that may present a national security threat to the United States. Under this act, the Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has the authority to highlight patent applications for scrutiny by U.S. defense departments (e.g., various three-letter and four-letter government agencies), ensuring certain innovations remain confidential. This veil of secrecy could extend to concepts and items conceived by individual civilians. Patents falling under such a secrecy directive are accessible to defense bodies, have export limitations, and are considered classified. Accordingly, the publication of such patent applications, or even the granting of a patent, could be delayed or altogether suppressed. These orders are in place to protect sensitive technologies from falling into the wrong hands. As of 2022, USPTO records show that there were 6,057 secrecy orders in effect. Continue Reading Cloaked in Secrecy: Can Secrecy Orders Shield Alien Innovations?

On May 8, 2023, the USPTO announced its preliminary proposal to adjust its schedule of trademark fees, which was last modified January 2, 2021.[i]  The USPTO states that the existing fee schedule does not allow for enough revenue because of (1) the change in both applicant filing behaviors and trademark demand, and (2)

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to show interest in trademark issues with its recent grant of certiorari in another case pitting the Lanham Act against the First Amendment.

Applicant Steve Elster applied to register the trademark TRUMP TOO SMALL for t-shirts back in 2018. The US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration on the

This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.

Recently, we published an article regarding the increasing viability of cannabis related patents. See here. Sadly, the story is the opposite for federal trademarks. Last month, National Concessions Group, Inc. (“NCG”) was denied federal registration for its trademarks: BAKKED and

(collectively the

Patent applications are often filed at the last minute. Priority considerations force the application to be filed expeditiously to avoid statutory bars or catastrophic public disclosure issues. But filing too quickly—or in the wrong country—may cause the eventual patent to be invalid for failure to obtain a foreign filing license.

What is a Foreign Filing

This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s International Dispute Resolution Blog.

There is a little-known provision of the Lanham Act (the US Trademark Act) that packs a potentially big punch. 15 USC § 1051(e) provides that if a non-U.S. entity registers for a trademark in the United States without designating a United States resident

Melissa Viviane Jefferson, better known by her stage name Lizzo, popularized the phrase 100% THAT BITCH in her hit song “Truth Hurts.” But are popular song lyrics able to function as a trademark for a line of clothing?

Lizzo thought so as her trademark holding company, Lizzo LLC, filed several applications for the phrase 100%