close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


TTAB Decision Illustrates Importance of Contract Language

Fenwick & West trademark litigation attorney Eric Ball told Bloomberg BNA that a recent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling illustrates the importances of settlements including a provision to preclude a party's ability to use and/or apply to register a trademark.

Who Dat Yat Chat filed an application with the USPTO in 2012 to trademark “Who Dat Yat Chat” in connection with restaurant services. Another company, Who Dat?, held trademarks on “Who Dat” related to alcoholic beverages, clothing and musical recordings. 

"Who Dat" is a common law phrase widely used in New Orleans. 

The two companies subsequently signed an agreement giving Who Dat Yat Chat exclusive registering and use of the terms “Who Dat Yat Chat” and “Who Dat” in relation to “restaurants, restaurant services, coffeehouses, coffeehouse services, and related services and products.” Who Dat? agreed not to interfere with Who Dat Yat Chat's registration or use of the trademark in these areas.

But in 2013, Who Dat? filed a new trademark application to use "Who Dat" on bakery products, including coffee and cake. 

In early 2014, Who Dat Yat Chat opposed the application, but the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied that motion. 

Most recently, the TTAB affirmed the district court’s ruling in a summary judgment, saying that Who Dat’s trademark application applied to a “much broader” range of goods and services than stipulated in the agreement in question.

Ball said that the TTAB finding “wasn't too surprising.” 

“Since this is a unique factual situation – it's pretty much the same motion from the district court litigation – I would expect the TTAB to defer in this situation,” he added.

Ball said that trademark attorneys should make sure that in addition to ensuring that another party can’t interfere with their clients’ use of their own trademarks, settlements must preclude the other party from using their clients’ trademark and/or applying to register it.

“Here, it looks like the opposer had the right to use the mark, but the issue it's running up against is that it didn't have a prohibition saying the other side can't apply for or use this mark. If it had that, then it wouldn't be in this situation,” Ball said. 

Ball also told BNA that this case was not necessarily a harbinger of future TTAB “preclusion” rulings. 

“I wouldn't want to read too much into this decision, because it is so factually unique in some ways, and not precedential,” he said, adding, “But if anything, it shows that the board is willing to defer to the district courts.”​​​