Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The TTABlog

Intellectual Property Law

: The TTABlog

Thinking About Fraud: Where Does "Inadvertence" End and "Reckless Disregard" Begin?

Countless articles, seminars, webinars, and postings have informed us that in In re Bose Corporation, 91 USPQ2d 1938 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the CAFC rejected the "knew or should have known" standard for fraud set out by the TTAB in Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1205 (TTAB 2003). The CAFC ruled that the Board, "[b]y equating 'should have known' with a subjective intent," had "erroneously lowered the fraud standard to a simple negligence standard." But what if the Medinol case were to come down the pike today? Applying Bose, was it fraud when Neuro Vasx filed its Statement of Use and "overlooked" one of two items in the identification of goods?In Bose, the CAFC held that "a trademark is obtained fraudulently under the Lanham Act only if the applicant or registrant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to deceive the PTO...continue to full post

Full post as published by The TTABlog on January 25, 2010 (boomark / email).