
Fred D. Zemel
Partner
201-896-7065 fzemel@sh-law.comPartner
201-896-7065 fzemel@sh-law.comThe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has withdrawn its refusal to grant Apple Inc.’s trademark application for mark “iPad Mini.” The examining attorney previously denied the request on several grounds, including that the word “mini” was merely descriptive.
If the USPTO determines that a mark is “merely descriptive,” then it cannot be registered unless it acquires distinctiveness. In its initial refusal letter, the USPTO’s examining attorney stated that the term “mini” simply described “something that is distinctively smaller than other members of its type or class” and provided several examples in which similar marks involving the term were denied.
However, the USPTO has since rescinded its initial refusal. Apple’s application now has the green light so long the company includes a disclaimer about its use of the word “mini.” According to the agency’s latest letter, “Applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording ‘mini’ apart from the mark as shown because it merely describes a quality, characteristic, or feature of applicant’s goods.”
As explained by the examining attorney, “An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms or designs that others may need to use to describe or show their goods or services in the marketplace.” Therefore, Apple’s trademark application must be amended to include the following disclaimer: “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “MINI” apart from the mark as shown.”
As Apple’s trademark process highlights, refusals issued in the initial action are not the final word. Depending on the circumstances, applicants can pursue further USPTO review or amend their applications to satisfy concerns raised by the examining attorney.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Fred Zemel, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!