Trademark news from the USPTO, the courts and the press — linked at the source, with a line from us on why it matters.
Our take — WTR reports that trademark owners seeking emergency injunctive relief succeed far less often at three major Texas district courts than the national average. Counsel choosing a forum for urgent relief should treat the district as a variable, not an afterthought.
Our take — The USPTO puts uptake at 42% of design mark applications in the six months since the feature launched in April, and ties accurate descriptions to fewer requirements and office actions. A generated description and color claim is still the applicant's statement, so check it against the drawing before filing.
Our take — WIPO reports 436 US-based international applications filed through Madrid e-Filing since the July 31 soft launch, and from October 1 US applicants pay all WIPO fees directly to WIPO in Swiss francs. Filers need a WIPO Account, separate from a USPTO.gov account, and a way to pay in francs before the next filing deadline.
Our take — The removals came through expungement and reexamination, mostly Director-initiated and mostly aimed at registrations tied to specimen farm websites and bad-faith filing firms, and the USPTO says cancellations more than doubled in just over a year. Owners should keep identifications limited to goods and services actually in use, and anyone blocked by a suspect registration can request either proceeding.
Our take — Assigning a challenged registration to a sovereign does not take it beyond the reach of a pending cancellation: tribal sovereign immunity, like state sovereign immunity, does not apply in Board inter partes proceedings. The Board so held in a precedential order on a question of first impression in Philip Morris USA Inc. v. IP Services International Inc., Cancellation No. 92063134, denying a tribal assignee's motion to dismiss.
Our take — The Supreme Court docket in No. 24-1016 also shows amicus briefs filed the same day by INTA, IPO, AIPLA and trademark law scholars, and PepsiCo's merits brief is due November 4, 2026. No argument date appears yet, so circuit law on whether mark strength is a question for the judge or the jury stays as it is for now.
Our take — The rule, effective January 1, 2027, changes only two class headings, a punctuation fix in Class 6 and diving terminology in Class 9, and the USPTO says it does not change the substantive criteria for registration. Practitioners who template identifications from class headings should update the Class 9 wording for new filings.
Our take — The analysis says these filings expose company founders to void applications, lost priority dates and litigation attacks when the name on the application is not checked. Before filing, settle whether the founder or the company is the one using the mark, and name that party as the applicant.
Our take — A brand owner suing for dilution by tarnishment should expect its proof of reputational harm to be tested against the accused use itself; an expert's view of the brand's image is not enough. In vacating the Bad Spaniels injunction, the Ninth Circuit held that Jack Daniel's had not proved the parody toy was likely to harm the reputation of its famous marks, and called its expert's contrary opinion "pure conjecture."
Our take — From August 1, 2026, designating the United Kingdom no longer covers Jersey, so new applications, subsequent designations and renewals must select Jersey on their own, with individual fees and a declaration of intent to use. WIPO records a Jersey designation automatically for existing registrations already protected in the UK, but not where the UK refusal period is still running or protection was refused. US owners who extend their marks to the UK through Madrid should add Jersey as its own designation in new filings and renewals if they want protection there.
Nothing from this source yet.