FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2610104984> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2610104984 startingPage "1027" @default.
• W2610104984 abstract "INTRODUCTIONThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had an active trademark docket in 2015. The Federal Circuit issued a total of fifteen trademark decisions,1 eleven of which were designated as precedential,2 including one en banc decision.3 This is a noticeable increase in precedential decisions from years past4 and the first en banc trademark decision issued in many years.5Of the fifteen trademark decisions, eleven primarily involved substantive issues, and the remaining four focused mainly on procedural issues. The cases consist of appeals from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board) and from federal district courts.The Federal Circuit's final decision of 2015 was its most significant. Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit overturned its prior decision in In re Tam (Tam I),6 which affirmed the TTAB's refusal to register the mark THE SLANTS on grounds that the mark is disparaging.7 As detailed below, the Federal Circuit's en banc decision held for the first time that the disparagement portion of section 2(a) of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.8 This decision will likely impact the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) future examination procedures under section 2(a), and it may also have a bearing on other pending cases involving this section of the Lanham Act.This Article reviews all of the Federal Circuit's 2015 trademark decisions in detail below and groups the decisions according to the primary issues in each case.I. SUBSTANTIVE TRADEMARK ISSUESA. Disparagement1. In re TamIn Tam I, Simon Shiao Tam, the 'front man' for Asian-American dance rock band[,] The Slants, initially applied to register the mark THE SLANTS for entertainment services.9 His first application for the word mark THE SLANTS used specimens featuring Asian motifs.10 The Examining Attorney refused registration of the mark under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, as a disparaging mark.11 Tam then filed a second application, which was the subject of this case.12 The specimens submitted with the second application did not include Asian motifs, but the Examining Attorney again refused registration on disparagement grounds under section 2(a), and the Board affirmed the refusal.13On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Tam argued that the TTAB erred in finding THE SLANTS mark disparaging.14 As an initial matter, Tam argued that the TTAB erred in relying on the evidence gathered by the Examining Attorney during the examination of the initial trademark application.15 However, the court held that such evidence was properly considered because the Examining Attorney can look at evidence outside of the application during examination.16Turning to the substantive grounds of refusal, the Federal Circuit applied a two-part test it developed in In re Geller17 to determine whether a mark is disparaging.18 Under this test, the Board must consider:(1) what is the likely meaning of the matter in question, taking into account not only dictionary definitions, but also the relationship of the matter to the other elements in the mark, the nature of the goods or services, and the manner in which the mark is used in the marketplace in connection with the goods or services; and(2) if that meaning is found to refer to identifiable persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, whether that meaning may be disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group.19Under the first part of the test, the Federal Circuit found substantial evidence supporting the TTAB's finding that the mark THE SLANTS likely refers to people of Asian descent.20 The court noted that although there are a number of meanings for the word slants, including innocuous meanings, that fact does not foreclose the possibility that the term may also be used in an offensive manner, even when the non-disparaging meanings are more common.21Under the second part of the test, the Federal Circuit found ample evidence that the word slant is disparaging, offensive, or an ethnic slur when used to refer to someone of Asian descent. …" @default.
• W2610104984 created "2017-05-05" @default.
• W2610104984 creator A5021523325 @default.
• W2610104984 creator A5026055855 @default.
• W2610104984 date "2016-03-01" @default.
• W2610104984 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2610104984 title "2015 Trademark Law Decisions of the Federal Circuit" @default.
• W2610104984 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2610104984 type Work @default.
• W2610104984 sameAs 2610104984 @default.
• W2610104984 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2610104984 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2610104984 hasAuthorship W2610104984A5021523325 @default.
• W2610104984 hasAuthorship W2610104984A5026055855 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConcept C2779027411 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConcept C2780851531 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConceptScore W2610104984C144133560 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConceptScore W2610104984C17744445 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConceptScore W2610104984C199539241 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConceptScore W2610104984C2776154427 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConceptScore W2610104984C2778272461 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConceptScore W2610104984C2778449503 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConceptScore W2610104984C2779027411 @default.
• W2610104984 hasConceptScore W2610104984C2780851531 @default.
• W2610104984 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2610104984 hasLocation W26101049841 @default.
• W2610104984 hasOpenAccess W2610104984 @default.
• W2610104984 hasPrimaryLocation W26101049841 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W1542924578 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W1569799723 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W180015790 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W1883886841 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W2003135302 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W208775765 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W2171109289 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W222920518 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W2269699112 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W2330305685 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W2594206242 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W2597063067 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W2730603846 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W2809834156 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W3178024517 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W3185459432 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W339657975 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W426967919 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W47345599 @default.
• W2610104984 hasRelatedWork W2596618925 @default.
• W2610104984 hasVolume "65" @default.
• W2610104984 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2610104984 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2610104984 magId "2610104984" @default.
• W2610104984 workType "article" @default.