Access practice tools, as well as industry leading news, customizable alerts, dockets, and primary content, including a comprehensive collection of case law, dockets, and regulations. Leverage...
By Tony Dutra
April 27 — The Supreme Court chose not to remand a case that presented a question similar to the one the court decided March 24 in B&B Hardware v. Hargis.
The court denied David Escamilla's petition for writ of certiorari on the preclusive effect of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision.
The court also denied a petition related to ownership of copyrights in the works of the Godfather of Soul, James Brown.
In 2010, the TTAB determined that M2 Technology Inc. could not register an “M2” design mark or the “M2 Technology” word mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks owned by M2 Software Inc., of which Escamilla is an individual owner.
Nevertheless, in 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that Escamilla had failed to show any likelihood of confusion based on M2 Technology's use of the M2 mark (Escamilla v. M2 Tech., Inc., 581 Fed. Appx. 449, 2014 BL 250550 (5th Cir. 2014).
The B&B Hardware case came to the Supreme Court under similar circumstances. The court held that, so long as the usual conditions for issue preclusion or collateral estoppel have been met, a likelihood of confusion ruling by the TTAB might have preclusive effect in district court (B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., No. 13-352, 2015 BL 80363, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 2045 (U.S. March 24, 2015).
The first question presented in Escamilla's Jan. 10 petition was:
Is a final judgment of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustaining allegations of likelihood-of-confusion afforded preclusive effect under ordinary preclusion principles (and, in the alternative, are decisions by the Commissioner for Trademarks and the USPTO's expert examiners entitled to deference)?
The Fifth Circuit also affirmed, on Oct. 20, a district court's order that Escamilla pay M2 Technology $75,000 in reasonable attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act (M2 Tech., Inc. v. M2 Software, Inc., 589 Fed. Appx. 671, 2014 BL 294228 (Oct. 20, 2014). The problem for Escamilla in that case was based on his repeated attempts to appear pro se and avoid joining his company, because corporations must be represented by counsel.
That was the basis for Escamilla's second question presented:
Does an Article III controversy exist in a declaratory judgment suit that seeks a declaration of non-infringement of a federal trademark (15 U.S.C. §1114(1)) but which does not name the federal trademark owner, where the sole declaratory defendant is a non-exclusive licensee with no legally-cognizable interest or any ability to sue pursuant to the terms of its license?
Richard C. King Jr. of the King Law Group PLLC, Dripping Springs, Texas, represented Escamilla. M2 Technology was represented by John T. Gabrielides of Brinks Gilson & Lione, Chicago.
The question presented in the copyright case was essentially an offshoot of a family inheritance squabble:
Can a manifestly unjust state spousal determination made without due process notice and hearing or equal protection under law for children, incarcerated children, and others, can bind heirs, creditors, charitable foundations and others and be used to subvert termination rights under the Federal Copyright Act?
In an unpublished opinion, the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the trial court's order denying a motion to alter an order from the underlying omitted spouse claim against James Brown's estate.
Charles E. Carpenter Jr. of Carpenter Appeals & Trial Support LLC, Columbia, S.C., represented claimant Adele Pope. J. Brian King of Donsbach & King LLC, Atlanta, responded on behalf of Brown's son Terry.
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Dutra in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Anandashankar Mazumdar at email@example.com
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)