http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2010/12/psst-want-to-buy-a-trademark-continued.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=psst-want-to-buy-a-trademark-continued Trademark and copyright litigation and counseling Sun, 19 May 2013 09:28:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2010/12/psst-want-to-buy-a-trademark-continued.html#comment-111 AMealey Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:13:00 +0000 http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/?p=4432#comment-111 I agree with the earlier comment. See the decision SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS, LLC, Opposition No. 91178539 (November 29, 2010) just redesignated as precedential. It seems highly unlikely that these auctioned ITU applications are valid. Intent to sell does not rise to the level of bona fide intent to use.

]]> http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2010/12/psst-want-to-buy-a-trademark-continued.html#comment-110 Scott34875 Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:33:00 +0000 http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/?p=4432#comment-110 It’s hard for me to understand how these are valid ITU applications. Clearly the seller has no bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. A search of the marks that were auctioned shows the applications were filed by at least five different companies, four of which have at least 30 applications on file and one of which has over 200. All were filed through the same attorney. They are doing exactly what the “bona fide intent” is designed to prevent – creating a market for and trading in ITU applications.

]]>