Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.
1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.
Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.
Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.
From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.
April 28-30, 2024
November 16, 2023 - In-Person in Munich
October 27, 2023
New & Improved Basis for Refusal to Register Single Work Titles
A single title of a work should now be registrable on the Supplemental Register provided the title is in use in commerce. In a recent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) case, the refusal based on the failure to function as a mark was questioned and hopefully laid to rest.
Although not identified as a precedent, In re King Productions, Inc., (TTAB Nov. 19, 2014), indicates that future refusals to register titles of single works will be refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) rather than Sections 1, 2 and 45. This means that applicants now have a new option to amend applications to the Supplemental Register rather than wait until the title is used for a second work.
Previously, attempts to register a title to a single work were refused based on the explanation that the title describes the work. However, despite the descriptiveness explanation, registration was refused by the USPTO for failure to function as a mark under Sections 1, 2 and 45, rather than refuse registration based on Section 2(e)(1) based on descriptiveness. TMEP §1202.08 still indicates that “The title of a single creative work is not registrable on either the Principal or Supplemental Register”. However, as a result of this case, which refers to “a thorough review of the case law and the underlying principles for refusing registration of titles”, such refusals should be a thing of the past.