Insights: Publications 6 Key Takeaways | Annual Update on Recent Trademark Case Law
Kilpatrick partner Ted Davis recently presented his “Annual Update on Recent Trademark Case Law” at the firm’s 2025 Advanced Trademark Law Seminar in San Francisco.
Below, Mr. Davis highlights key takeaways from his presentation which included:
1. the Supreme Court’s adoption in Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. 286 (2024), of a history-and-tradition model for evaluating the constitutionality of some—but perhaps not all—content-discriminatory prohibitions on registrations;
2. the applications on remand and otherwise of the Court’s decisions in Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023) and Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., 600 U.S. 412 (2023);
3. yet another accounting-of-profits dispute before the Court, namely, Dewberry Eng’rs Inc. v. Dewberry Grp., 77 F.4th 265 (4th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, 144 S. Ct. 2681 (2024);
4. the strange goings-on in Pennsylvania State Univ. v. Vintage Brand, LLC, 715 F. Supp. 3d 602 (M.D. Pa. 2024);
5. the USPTO’s new fee schedule; and
6. the phaseout of United States Patents Quarterly by the USPTO’s trademark operations.
For more information, please contact:
Ted Davis: tdavis@ktslaw.com
Related People
Disclaimer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.
