ARE Trademark Law Alert:
BEIJING IP COURT CONFIRMS THAT OEM USE OF A TRADEMARK IS SUFFICIENT TO DEFEND AGAINST NON-USE CANCELLATION

On December 26, 2017, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (“IP Court”) issued a decision in Macy’s Merchandising Group, Inc. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board—in which Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP successfully represented plaintiff Macy’s— that addresses the issue of whether original equipment manufacturing (“OEM”) use of a trademark is sufficient to defend against non-use […]

US Supreme Court clarifies definition of corporate residence for purpose of patent venue

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, jpx163, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpx163TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 US __ (2017), Supreme Court of the United States, 22 May 2017 The US Supreme Court unanimously held that ‘a domestic corporation “resides” only in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.’ The court reversed […]