In this article, Intellectual Property national co-chair Karen Artz Ash and partner Bret Danow discuss the results and implications of Solid 21 v Hublot of America, et al. The US District Court for the Central District of California held that once a term becomes generic, it is always generic and cannot be the subject of trademark protection under any circumstances, even if the purported owner can demonstrate a secondary meaning. Karen and Bret note that the case serves as a warning for entities interested in adopting a previously generic term as a brand name. Additionally, it shows that even an incontestable trade mark registration can be invalidated on a claim of genericness.
Related Professionals
-
Partner and Co-Chair, Trademark/Copyright/Privacy Group+1.212.940.8554 -
New York
