“The Lessons of Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx Inc.”
A three-year-old Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decision in Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx Inc., 67 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1205 (TTAB 2003) may be changing the way United States trademark registrations are handled. The Medinol decision did not arrive with a big splash, but could be quietly putting existing trademark registrations at risk. While the duty of full disclosure is a strict tenet in patent prosecution, historically, trademark applicants faced very few guidelines as to how strict their disclosure must be. However, the TTAB in Medinol found that a trademark applicant could be committing fraud if it included goods and services in a Statement of Use that it had not actually used.
This Stroock Special Bulletin provides a brief overview of the Medinol decision and looks at some of its practical implications.