Thursday, June 07, 2018

Secondary meaning issue in the Converse case

On 7 June 2018, the CAFC ordered briefing in the Converse v. ITC case:

No later than June 27, 2018, the parties shall file
simultaneous letter briefs, not to exceed 15 double-spaced
pages, addressing the following. Under Aromatique, Inc.
v. Gold Seal, Inc., 28 F.3d 863, 870 (8th Cir. 1994), and
related cases, the presumption of secondary meaning
applies only from the date of registration forward.


1. Was Converse required to show priority in the
mark (i.e., secondary meaning at the time of first
infringement) without regard to the presumption of
validity that would exist if its trademark registration
is valid?
2. What significance does the registration of the mark
or its validity have in these proceedings?
3. Was it necessary or appropriate for the ITC to address
the validity of the registered mark?


Post a Comment

<< Home