DOCSLIB.ORG

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit No. 18-302 In the Supreme Court of the United States ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PETITIONER v. ERIK BRUNETTI ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General MALCOLM L. STEWART SARAH HARRIS Deputy Solicitor General General Counsel JONATHAN Y. ELLIS JOSEPH MATAL Assistant to the Solicitor Acting Solicitor General ARK REEMAN CHRISTINA J. HIEBER M R. F ANIEL ENNY THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE D T MARY BETH WALKER JOSHUA M. SALZMAN MOLLY R. SILFEN Attorneys Associate Solicitors Department of Justice U.S. Patent and Trademark Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Office [email protected] Alexandria, Va. 22314 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), provides in pertinent part that a trademark shall be re- fused registration if it “[c]onsists of or comprises im- moral * * * or scandalous matter.” The question pre- sented is as follows: Whether Section 1052(a)’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is fa- cially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved ...................... 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................. 10 I. The court of appeals’ invalidation of an Act of Congress warrants this Court’s review ....................... 10 II. The court of appeals erred in holding that the scandalous-marks provision is unconstitutional ......... 12 A. This Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam is not controlling here ....................................................... 12 B. Section 1052(a) does not restrict speech ............... 15 C. The scandalous-marks provision establishes a lawful eligibility requirement for federal trademark registration ........................................... 18 III. The question presented is important ........................... 24 Conclusion ................................................................................... 25 Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (Dec. 15, 2017) .............................................. 1a Appendix B — Trademark Trial and Appeal B oard opinion (Aug. 1, 2014) ................ 55a Appendix C — Court of appeals order denying rehearing en banc (Apr. 12, 2018) ............................. 68a Appendix D — Statutory provision ...................................... 70a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013) ............................................... 19, 20 Ashcrof t v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) ............................... 11 B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) ..................................................... 3, 16 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) .................................................................................... 14 Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142 (1927) .............................. 11 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) ...................... 11 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ......................................... 8, 22 City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) ............................................................... 22 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ............................................................... 21 Davenport v. Washington Educ. Ass’n, 551 U.S. 177 (2007) .................................................................................... 20 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ............................... 21 FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) .................................................................................... 22 Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 (1979) ............................... 21 General Media Commc’ns, Inc. v. Cohen, 131 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 951 (1998) ....... 14 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) .................................................................................... 11 Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017).......................... passim PMG Int’l Div., L.L.C. v. Rumsfeld, 303 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 14 Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985)................................................................ 2 Perry v. McDonald, 280 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2001) .......... 14, 15 Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) ...................................................................................... 3 Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) .................. 15 Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540 (1983)........................................................ 18, 19 V Cases—Continued: Page Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995).............................................................. 15 Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) .............................. 11 Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) .............................. 7, 18 San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522 (1987) ................... 21 Tam, In re, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................... 15 Trade-Mark Cases, In re, 100 U.S. 82 (1879) ................. 3, 16 Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) ............................................ 19 Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) ...................................................................................... 3 United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012) .................... 11 United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000)........................................................ 17, 18 United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) .................... 11 United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) ................. 11 Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) ....... 18 Constitution, treaty, and statutes: U.S. Const. Amend. I (Free Speech Clause) ............. passim Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property art. 6quinquies, July 14, 1967, 21 U.S.T. 1643, 828 U.N.T.S. 331 ................................................................. 24 Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, §§ 77-84, 16 Stat. 210-212 ......... 3 Act of Feb. 20, 1905, ch. 592, 33 Stat. 724 ............................. 3 § 5, 33 Stat. 725 ............................................................ 4, 24 Lanham Act, ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.)..................................................................................... 3 15 U.S.C. 1051(a)(1) ........................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1052 .................................................. 2, 4, 17, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) (§ 2(a)) ................................ passim, 70a VI Statutes—Continued: Page 15 U.S.C. 1052(b) ....................................................... 4, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(c) ....................................................... 4, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(d) ....................................................... 4, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1) ................................................... 4, 72a 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(5) ................................................... 4, 72a 15 U.S.C. 1057(a) ............................................................. 19 15 U.S.C. 1057(b) ............................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1065 .................................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1071(a) ............................................................. 25 15 U.S.C. 1072 .................................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1111 .................................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1115(a) ............................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1115(b) ............................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) ............................................................. 16 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) ......................................................... 3, 16 15 U.S.C. 1125(b) ......................................................... 3, 16 15 U.S.C. 1125(d) ......................................................... 3, 16 15 U.S.C. 1127 .............................................................. 2, 16 15 U.S.C. 1141b ................................................................ 24 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(B) ......................................................... 25 Miscellaneous: USPTO, Examination Guide 2-18: Examination Guidance for Compliance with Section 2(a)’s Scan- dalousness Provision While Constitutionality Re- mains in Question during Period to Petition for Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court (May 24, 2018), http://www.uspto.gov/trademark/guides-and- manuals/trademark-examination-guides
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Slurs, Insults and Cheers: the Latest TM and Copyright Cases Impacting Your Business 11/08/2017
    Slurs, Insults and Cheers: The Latest TM and Copyright Cases Impacting Your Business 11/08/2017 Slurs, Insults and Cheers: The Latest TM and Copyright Cases Impacting Your Business Presented by Alan Nemes WERE YOU JUST INSULTING ME OR JUST REGISTERING A TRADEMARK? Matal v.Tam 58 U.S. ____, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) © 2017 Husch Blackwell LLP © 2017 Husch Blackwell LLP. All Rights Reserved. 1 Slurs, Insults and Cheers: The Latest TM and Copyright Cases Impacting Your Business 11/08/2017 Disparagement Clause Lanham Act §2(a) No trademark…will be refused registration…unless it: (a) consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous material; or matter which may disparage…..persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute. © 2017 Husch Blackwell LLP Disparagement Clause Unconstitutional . Supreme Court rules: . Disparagement Clause regulates content or viewpoint based speech in violation of 1st Amendment free speech . Limiting expressive speech requires strictest scrutiny . Even if commercial speech, government fails to meet its burden in demonstrating substantial interest in curtailing speech and narrowly drawing limits . Rejects claims that that trademarks are government speech or government subsidies. © 2017 Husch Blackwell LLP © 2017 Husch Blackwell LLP. All Rights Reserved. 2 Slurs, Insults and Cheers: The Latest TM and Copyright Cases Impacting Your Business 11/08/2017 Immorality and Scandal: Next to the Chopping Block? . Lanham Act §2(a): . No trademark…will be refused registration…unless it: . (a) consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous material; or matter which may disparage…..persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.
    [Show full text]
  • Balancing Trademark Dilution Through Burnishment
    21_2_Article_6_Loughran (Do Not Delete) 6/3/2017 8:38 AM NOTES & COMMENTS TARNISHMENT’S GOODY-TWO-SHOES SHOULDN’T GET ALL THE PROTECTION: BALANCING TRADEMARK DILUTION THROUGH BURNISHMENT by Jordana S. Loughran ∗ Famous marks classically earn twofold confusion and dilution trademark protection. In the past, only famous high-quality, socially acceptable marks—dubbed “wholesome” marks in this Comment—have found protection under dilution theory. Historically, one-sided protection of these wholesome marks isolated an entire classification of trademarks technically qualified for dilution protection, termed “unwholesome marks.” Unwholesome marks are famous marks that either represent salacious goods or services or maintain a constant seamy, gritty, or tawdry appearance. This Comment explores the evolution of dilution theory and its relational effect on unwholesome marks. I hypothesize that courts have construed the dilution doctrine too narrowly and, in doing so, precluded qualified unwholesome marks from bringing viable dilution claims. Part I offers a necessary foundation of trademark protection. Part II explains dilution by tarnishment history and theory before 1995. Part III * Born in Portland, Oregon, Jordana Loughran graduated from Portland State University in 2011 and Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College in 2016, earning a certificate of Intellectual Property. Since graduating, Jordana has shifted focus from intellectual property to real estate law. Many thanks to Professor Tomás Gómez-Arostegui for his guidance and insight throughout this project, my parents, Drs. Vijai A. Shukla and Lee W. Ball, for their unfailing support and meticulous proofreading, and my husband, Phillip J. Loughran, for always encouraging me to explore the sinful side of the law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Slants Decision Understates the Value of Trademark Registration in Promoting Speech - Correctly Decided with a Conclusory Analysis
    THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW THE SLANTS DECISION UNDERSTATES THE VALUE OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION IN PROMOTING SPEECH - CORRECTLY DECIDED WITH A CONCLUSORY ANALYSIS DAVID C. BREZINA ABSTRACT The highly anticipated case of Matal v. Tam resulted in the band, The Slants, eventually being able to register their band name as a trademark, with a goal in mind to reclaim Asian stereotypes. Despite this decision, it is not immediately clear how having a registration enhances the registrant’s right to use the mark as a part of free speech, when the Court observes that Tam could call his band The Slants even without registration. This article touches on the Tam case, by analyzing both the positive and negative rights that federal trademark registration yields. By expanding on a variety of examples, this article will explore the focus for a First Amendment evaluation on rights of speech, rather than focus primarily on the prima facie case that comes with having a trademark registration, concluding that the advantages to free speech resulting from registration are substantial. Copyright © 2018 The John Marshall Law School Cite as David C. Brezina, The Slants Decision Understates the Value of Trademark Registration in Promoting Speech - Correctly Decided With a Conclusory Analysis, 17 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 380 (2018). THE SLANTS DECISION UNDERSTATES THE VALUE OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION IN PROMOTING SPEECH - CORRECTLY DECIDED WITH A CONCLUSORY ANALYSIS DAVID C. BREZINA I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 381 II. REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION TO DISPARAGING MARKS ............................................ 382 III. ARE FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS PRIVATE SPEECH SUBJECT TO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS? ................................................................................. 383 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Government's Argument
    No. 18-302 In the Supreme Court of the United States ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PETITIONER v. ERIK BRUNETTI ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General MALCOLM L. STEWART SARAH HARRIS Deputy Solicitor General General Counsel FREDERICK LIU THOMAS W. KRAUSE Assistant to the Solicitor Solicitor General CHRISTINA J. HIEBER MARK R. FREEMAN THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE DANIEL TENNY OSHUA ALZMAN MARY BETH WALKER J M. S MOLLY R. SILFEN Attorneys Associate Solicitors Department of Justice U.S. Patent and Trademark Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Office [email protected] Alexandria, Va. 22314 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), provides in pertinent part that a trademark shall be refused registration if it “[c]onsists of or comprises immoral * * * or scandalous matter.” The question presented is as follows: Whether Section 1052(a)’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved ...................... 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 Summary of argument ............................................................... 11 Argument: The scandalous-marks provision in 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) is facially constitutional under the First Amendment...... 14 A. This Court’s decision in Tam is limited to trademark-registration criteria that discriminate based on viewpoint ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Trade-Mark Paper
    Functionality, Fame and Goodwill: The Supreme Court of Canada has Finally Spoken* In the last eight months, the Supreme Court of Canada released three important decisions on trade-mark law involving building blocks, barbie dolls, and bubbly. This is significant considering that there has been a virtual decade of drought on trade-mark law at the highest court in Canada. While each case involved different facts and issues, one similarity exists: the result. In each case, the trade-mark owners did not prevail. In Kirkbi AG and Lego Canada Inc. v. Ritvik Holdings Inc./Gestions Ritvik Inc. (now operating as Mega Bloks Inc.)1 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Mega Bloks’ interlocking toy bricks did not infringe the Danish toy giant Lego’s distinctive construction toys. The Court based its decision on the “doctrine of functionality” to hold that Lego did not have trade-mark rights. In two companion cases, Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc.2 and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltd.3, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to clarify the stature of famous trade-marks and the issue of confusion in Canada. In addition to the issue of fame and confusion, the Supreme Court, in the Veuve Clicquot case, commented on the anti-dilution remedy, called depreciation of goodwill in Canada (s. 22 of the Trade-marks Act4), an area which has “received surprisingly little judicial attention” unlike in other jurisdictions such as the United States. What follows is a summary of the Supreme Court's decisions and the current state of Canadian trade-mark law on the issues of functionality, fame and depreciation of goodwill.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 300 Pleadings
    CHAPTER 300 PLEADINGS 301 TYPES OF BOARD PROCEEDINGS 301.01 IN GENERAL 301.02 MARK ON SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER NOT SUBJECT TO OPPOSITION 301.03 MARK FILED UNDER THE MADRID PROTOCOL IS SUBJECT TO OPPOSITION 302 COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDING 303 WHO MAY OPPOSE OR PETITION TO CANCEL 303.01 IN GENERAL 303.02 MEANING OF THE TERM “PERSON” 303.03 MEANING OF THE TERM “DAMAGE” 303.04 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 303.05 OPPOSITION FILED DURING EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE 303.05(a) General Rule 303.05(b) Opposition Filed by Privy 303.05(c) Misidentification of Opposer 303.05(d) Misidentification of Applicant or Respondent 303.06 JOINT OPPOSERS OR PETITIONERS 304 PROCEEDING AGAINST MULTIPLE CLASS APPLICATION OR REGISTRATION 305 CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED COMPLAINTS 305.01 CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 305.02 COMBINED COMPLAINT 306 TIME FOR FILING OPPOSITION 306.01 IN GENERAL 306.02 DATE OF PUBLICATION OF MARK 306.03 PREMATURE OPPOSITION 306.04 LATE OPPOSITION 307 TIME FOR FILING PETITION TO CANCEL 307.01 PETITION THAT MAY BE FILED AT ANY TIME AFTER REGISTRATION 307.02 PETITION THAT MUST BE FILED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF REGISTRATION 307.02(a) In General 307.02(b) Trademark Act § 14, 15 U.S.C. § 1064, Limitation is Independent of Trademark Act § 15, 15 U.S.C. § 1065, Affidavit 307.02(c) Factors Affecting the Five-Year Period 307.02(c)(1) Reliance on Registration by Plaintiff Chapter 300 - 1 307.02(c)(2) Amendment of Registration 307.03 PREMATURE PETITION TO CANCEL 307.04 LATE PETITION TO CANCEL 308 FILING FEES 308.01 FEE FOR FILING OPPOSITION 308.01(a) In
    [Show full text]
  • Wipo Intellectual Property Handbook Wipo Publication
    WIPO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HANDBOOK WIPO PUBLICATION No. 489 (E) ISBN 978-92-805-1291-5 WIPO 2004 Second Edition Reprinted 2008 Detailed Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction The Concept of Intellectual Property 3 The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 4 History 4 Mission and Activities 5 Structure 7 Administration 8 Membership 9 Constitutional Reform 9 Wider Consultation and Outreach 12 Chapter 2 Fields of Intellectual Property Protection Patents 17 Introduction 17 Conditions of Patentability 17 Drafting and Filing a Patent Application 22 Examination of a Patent Application 24 Infringement 27 Exploitation of the Patented Invention 33 Compulsory Licenses 34 Utility Models 40 ii WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use Copyright and Related Rights 40 Introduction 40 Copyright Protection 41 Subject Matter of Copyright Protection 42 Rights Comprised in Copyright 43 Related Rights 46 Ownership of Copyright 49 Limitations on Copyright Protection 50 Piracy and Infringement 51 Remedies 52 Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions 56 Trends and Experiences in the Protection of TCEs 64 Conceptual and Policy Questions 66 Recent and Possible Future Developments 67 Trademarks 67 Introduction 67 Definitions 68 Signs Which May Serve as Trademarks 70 Criteria of Protectability 71 Protection of Trademark Rights 77 Use Requirements 77 Trademark Registration 79 Removal of the Trademark from the Register 82 Trademark Piracy, Counterfeiting and Imitation of Labels and Packaging 90 Change of Ownership 92 Trademark
    [Show full text]
  • Shame Spiral 4.28
    Shame Spiral (or a probably-bad-stupid-nobody-will-ever-want-to-watch-it play about The Bachelor) by Ali Viterbi Contact: Leah Hamos The Gersh Agency 41 Madison Ave, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10010 [email protected] CHARACTERS THE PLAYWRIGHT: Ali THE CRYING VIRGIN: Lauren S, Lauren of S THE BIGSHOT HOTSHOT: Chris Harrison, Producer, @Bigshot, Frat Bro, Enthusiastic Bro, Man in Toga, Doctor THE KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR: Producer 2, @Knight, Romantic Bro, Woke Bro, Boyfriend, Bee Keeper, Father THE ASSHOLE: Youtube Jerk, Producer 3, Chad, Chadworth, @Asshole, Jerk Bro, Scared Bro, Roman Soldier, Southern Man THE SLUT: Lauren B, @Slut, Lady-in-Waiting THE WIFEY: Lauren P, @Wifey, Midwife, Sister, E-News THE DESPERATE MILF: Lauren D, @MILF, Cave Woman, Town Busy Body TIME AND PLACE The Present. America. On the Internet. In Reality. On TV. Somewhere in between. A NOTE ON LANGUAGE & STAGING On The Bachelor, the lead and his chosen winner get engaged in under ten weeks. Things happen FAST. This play should feel faster. Every transition should be lightening-quick. The internet is theatricalized onstage, and the audience should feel like they're falling faster and faster down an internet rabbit hole (or a shame spiral). When Lauren S announces her virginity on national television, the other characters get a taste of blood. Over the course of the play, they become more and more blood-hungry - until they ultimately devour her. The world should be Shiny and Perfect, until it isn't - until it's full of blood, and weird-smelling butts, and pubic hair.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
    Case 2:15-cv-05882-WHW-CLW Document 105 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 26 PageID: 1547 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DIOPSYS, INC. Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-05882-WHW- CLW Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT v. AND JURY DEMAND KONAN MEDICAL USA, INC., and ECF Case GEORGE HU, Defendants. Plaintiff, Diopsys, Inc., (“Diopsys” or “Plaintiff”) hereby sues Defendants Konan Medical USA, Inc. (“Konan”) and Dr. George Hu (“Hu,” and collectively “Defendants”) and alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is a corporation of the State of New Jersey having a place of business at 16 Chapin Road, Suite 912, Pine Brook, NJ 07058. 2. Plaintiff is a medical instrumentation company specializing in vision testing equipment. 3. Konan is a California corporation having a place of principal business at 15 Marconi, Suite A, Irvine, CA 92618. 4. Upon information and belief, Hu is a resident of New Jersey residing at 106 Anderson St., Raritan, NJ 08869. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This is a civil action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States relating to Defendants’ infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,475,162, entitled “System and Method for Vision Case 2:15-cv-05882-WHW-CLW Document 105 Filed 07/13/17 Page 2 of 26 PageID: 1548 Examination Using Interrupt Signals for Synchronizing Visual Evoked Potential Sampling Rate with Visual Stimulus” (“the ‘162 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,578,795 entitled “System and Method for Vision Examination Utilizing Fault Detection” (“the ‘795 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
    [Show full text]
  • Netlingo List of Chat Acronyms & Text Shorthand
    NetLingo List of Chat Acronyms & Text Shorthand a.k.a. Internet acronyms, text message jargon, abbreviations, initialisms, cyberslang, leetspeak, SMS code, textese With hundreds of millions of people texting regularly, it's no wonder you've seen this cryptic looking code! Commonly used wherever people get online -- including IMing, SMSing, cell phones, Blackberries, PDAs, Web sites, games, newsgroup postings, in chat rooms, on blogs, or on social media -- these abbreviations are used by people around the world to communicate with each other. NetLingo is also tracking a global list of worldwide text terms and international online jargon! • !I have a comment • *$Starbucks • **//it means wink wink, nudge nudge • ,!!!!Talk to the hand • 02Your (or my) two cents worth, also seen as m.02 • 10QThank you • 1174Nude club • 121One to one • 1337Elite -or- leet -or- L337 • 14it refers to the fourteen words • 143I love you • 1432I Love You Too • 14AA41One for All and All for One • 182I hate you • 187it means murder/ homicide • 190 hand • 1dafulit means wonderful • 2it means to, too, two • 20Location • 24/7Twenty Four Seven, as in all the time • 2bTo be • 2B or not 2BTo Be Or Not To Be • 2b@To Be At • 2BZ4UQTToo Busy For You Cutey • 2B~not2BTo be or not to be • 2d4To die for • 2dayToday • 2DLooToodle oo • 2G2B4GToo Good To Be Forgotten • 2G2BTToo Good To Be True • 2moroTomorrow • 2niteTonight • 2QTToo Cute • 2U2To You Too • 303Mom • 4For, Four • 404I haven't a clue • 411Information • 420Marijuana • 459I love you • 4COLFor Crying Out Loud • 4eForever
    [Show full text]
  • Articles Are We Running out of Trademarks? an Empirical Study of Trademark Depletion and Congestion
    VOLUME 131 FEBRUARY 2018 NUMBER 4 © 2018 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLES ARE WE RUNNING OUT OF TRADEMARKS? AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TRADEMARK DEPLETION AND CONGESTION Barton Beebe & Jeanne C. Fromer CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 948 I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 954 A. The Trademark Registration Process .............................................................................. 955 1. The Distinctiveness Requirement .............................................................................. 957 2. Classification of Goods and Services ........................................................................ 958 3. The Bar to the Registration of Marks Confusingly Similar to Already-Registered Marks ...................................................................................... 960 4. The Protection of Unregistered Marks ..................................................................... 961 B. The Finite Universe of “Good” Trademarks .................................................................. 962 1. The Conventional Wisdom Clarified ......................................................................... 962 2. The Characteristics of Good Trademarks.................................................................. 964 C. Applicants’ Mark Selection .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ratchet: an Etymological Origin & Social Dispersion Theory
    RATCHET: AN ETYMOLOGICAL ORIGIN & SOCIAL DISPERSION THEORY by CHRISTA A. RAMPLEY (Under the Direction of LEWIS C. HOWE) ABSTRACT Ratchet has received a tremendous amount of pop-culture attention within the last decade. Despite folkloric theories as to the origins of the term in the working-class black population of the Southern United States, this work presents evidence that showcases the development of ratchet within the chiefly white trucking community. From there, the word is traced through the ages, arriving and once again departing from the black community supposed to have proliferated the term, stopping by the LGBTQ community, and finally resting with the young, white middle- class. Attention is paid to the sociological implications of the word’s progression from an underground label to a mass-population phenomenon, including the various gender-specific, racially-charged, and class-based sentiments associated with its use. In summary, ratchet is evaluated for the multi-level appropriation of culture that it so accurately represents with special consideration to the concepts of language variation and both lexical and semantic change. INDEX WORDS: sociolinguistics, slang, etymology, dispersion, rap music, reality television, class, gender, race, African-American Vernacular English, AAVE RATCHET: AN ETYMOLOGICAL ORIGIN & SOCIAL DISPERSION THEORY by CHRISTA A. RAMPLEY BA, University of Georgia, 2013 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER
    [Show full text]