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


Could Offensive Trademarks Find Refuge in Common Law?

The 177-page tome the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) just issued in Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc. is remarkable for its length and its subject matter, cancellation of the controversial REDSKINS mark as disparaging to Native Americans, though this isn’t the first time the TTAB has crossed that controversial threshold.

The decision underscores a little known fundamental of U.S. trademark law: Rights primarily are based on use of a mark, not registration. You don’t need a registration to enforce rights in a mark. The decision doesn’t mean that Pro-Football, which owns and operates the Washington Redskins NFL team, is required to change the team name or that it can no longer prevent others from making commercial use of the name.

The TTAB makes this distinction clear at the beginning of the decision: “This decision concerns only the statutory right to registration under Section 2(a). We lack statutory authority to issue rulings concerning the right to use trademarks.”

Owning a federal trademark registration has its benefits, such as nationwide constructive notice of rights, and prima facie and ultimately, in many cases, conclusive evidence of exclusive rights to use the mark for the identified goods or services. Registration also allows the owner to record with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to garner that agency’s assistance in seizing and potentially destroying counterfeits (obviously a big issue for the NFL). But even if a registration is cancelled, the underlying common law rights continue in the geography where the mark is used and known.

To determine whether an owner has common law rights in a mark, courts not only require actual and continuous use of the mark, but also look to factors such as widespread distribution and the public’s association with the mark. An owner of common law rights can still sue for infringement in state or federal court and obtain both injunctive relief and monetary damages in appropriate cases. Without federal registration, an owner still has other avenues, albeit slightly more limited and definitely more costly, to enforce its rights in a mark.

While disparagement is a bar to federal registration of a mark (the TTAB may cancel a trademark registration that “may disparage… persons, living or dead… or bring them into contempt or disrepute”), the key underlying question here is whether disparagement is a valid basis under the common law for invalidating trademark rights. If so, Pro-Football may soon find that it cannot enforce the REDSKINS mark at all.

The traditional spectrum of distinctiveness, by which we determine whether a mark is sufficiently distinctive to be protected as a mark, only covers four categories—generic, descriptive, suggestive and arbitrary/fanciful—not disparagement. California’s relevant law, presumably substantially codifying the common law, tracks the federal law on disparagement: California’s Business and Professions Code Section14205(b) makes clear that disparaging marks are excluded from state registration, but the code also defers to the common law in Section 14259: “nothing… shall adversely affect the rights or the enforcement of rights in marks acquired in good faith at any time within common law.” Can one acquire common law rights in good faith in a disparaging “mark”? This is an open question, as the legislative history of the Lanham Act and case law shed no light on this issue.

Beyond the question of whether disparagement might invalidate Pro-Football’s ability to enforce its common law trademark rights is yet another interesting question: What is the precedential value, if any, of the TTAB decision in subsequent common law enforcement efforts by Pro-Football? In B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Indus. Inc., 569 F.3d 383 (8th Cir. 2009), the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the TTAB’s decision that there was a likelihood of confusion between two marks was not binding and had no precedential role in the subsequent infringement action because the TTAB’s likelihood of confusion test differed from that of the courts; while the TTAB heavily emphasized the appearance and sound of the two marks for registration purposes, the courts focus on marketplace realities in assessing likelihood of confusion as the test for infringement.

B&B Hardware’s petition for certiorari is pending; at the Supreme Court’s request for input, the solicitor general recently filed an amicus, advocating that the court grant the petition. If the Supreme Court decides the case, it is unlikely to rule that TTAB decisions are binding on courts in subsequent litigation. It is even more unlikely that a finding that a TTAB decision is binding would apply retrospectively to Blackhorse, particularly because subsequent infringement litigation would not be between the same parties as the TTAB matter.

There also is the question whether laches might apply in the REDSKINS case: The six cancelled registrations initially registered between 1967 and 1990, and the relevant time period for assessing disparagement is at the time of registration. A previous challenge to these registrations ultimately failed when the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s determination that laches applied to that challenger’s claim.

Interestingly, the laches issue may take on a different complexion this time around: In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), a copyright case, the Supreme Court just held that laches cannot apply if a claim is brought within the applicable statute of limitations, which, in Petrella, was three years. Reasoning that laches “is essentially gap-filling, not legislation-overriding,” the court cut back application of the equitable doctrine, but offered that laches may still apply in “extraordinary circumstances… the consequences of a delay in commencing suit may be of sufficient magnitude to warrant, at the very outset of the litigation, curtailment of the relief equitably awardable.” Along the same vein, in Blackhorse, the TTAB held the NFL could not raise laches because “there exists a broader public interest than that of individual petitioners in preventing respondent from receiving the benefits of registration because respondent’s marks may have disparaged a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time.” If the courts similarly consider the public’s interest, and if Petrella signals an intellectual property-wide development on the laches front, laches may not play well as an affirmative defense for Pro-Football in subsequent actions.

Speaking of which, a Native American rights group announced Wednesday its intention to file a lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians for $9 billion in damages for using that name. The issues raised in Blackhorse will remain in the headlines, and in the courts, for some time to come.

 

Originally published in the Daily Journal on June 27, 2014.​