About the Author

Scott Slavick

Scott Slavick

Scott Slavick is a shareholder at Brinks Gilson & Lione, where his practice focuses primarily on trademark prosecution and trademark litigation. Scott maintains all aspects of his large corporate clients’ trademark portfolios, and has extensive experience in international trademark matters, including litigation, licensing and prosecution, determining international filing strategies, negotiating worldwide co-existence agreements and implementing strategies to defend trademarks and prevent infringements.

Article List

  • Hard Case to crack? Not this time

    TTAB dismisses opposition to Hard Candy mark by HardCandy Cases, which may come as a shock to future opposers.

  • No fairy tale ending for Disney in Zombie Cinderella case

    Evidence of third-party Cinderella dolls long having been marketed domestically, as well as the long history of the fairy tale, convinced the Board that Disney’s mark was too weak to block United Trademark’s.

  • A rose by any other name? Not McSweet.

    Once the Board summarily concluded that McDonald’s had standing and priority, it turned to the main question: whether McDonald’s could prove McSweet’s use of the name McSweet was likely to cause confusion.

  • Beauty may be skin-deep, but not this mark!

    In a ruling that's certain to—ahem!—get under Skincode's skin, the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently dismissed the Swiss firm's opposition to registration of the mark SWISSCODE by Sweden's Skin Concept.

  • The phantom lives!

    The question the TTAB determined that it had to decide was whether Enterprise's omission of either the term FLEET MANAGEMENT or COMMERCIAL TRUCKS in the mark changes the commercial impression of the mark. The Board felt that it did not.

  • A mile in these shoes might be uncomfortable

    While attempting to defend their actions, the retailers have raised an interesting and little used defense in trademark infringement litigation: the unclean hands defense.

  • Not only alive and well — but full of energy

    So, in sum, it's safe to say the safe distance rule is alive and well. But what does this recent case involving Innovation Ventures, owner of the well-known 5-Hour Energy marks, mean for future plaintiffs and defendants?

  • Sour smell in the Kingdom of Sweet Adventures

    The Candy Land case highlights one of the most common misconceptions about copyright law: that if you pay someone to develop copyrighted material for you, it is a work made for hire and you own it.

  • Fighting to win? It takes more than energy

    Because the proposed mark would be perceived as merely touting the fast-acting and long-lasting qualities of the product, and not identifying its source of origin, the Board ruled, the slogan is incapable of functioning as a trademark.

  • A Romanov mystery revisited. (Why didn't this mark die?)

    But in the aftermath of the decision at the TTAB in this case, can we feel any more confident about applying to register a mark that sounds like a surname? I surely don't.

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.