2021 Trademark Boot Camp (TMBC)

August 30 to September 2, 2021

Location

Online - Aug. 30 – Sept. 2 for about 4.5 hours each day between 12:00pm-6pm EST.

Credits

990 Minutes of CLE

Registration

Fee: Members: $395 / Non-Members $795 Students $55

Register Now

The Eleventh Annual Trademark Boot Camp is a comprehensive online CLE program designed for new practitioners and others interested in learning the basics of trademark practice. Topics include; trademark clearance, pre-filing considerations, trademark prosecution, international trademark filing strategies, disputes, including trademark investigations, cease-and-desist campaigns, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) practice, and an introduction to trademark litigation.

Participants will participate in two hands-on workshops taught by experienced trademark practitioners: (1) ordering and analyzing search reports and preparing clearance opinions and (2) responding effectively to Office Actions. Representatives from the United States Patent and Trademark Office will serve as instructors for the Office Action response workshop, and another workshop will feature a panel of TTAB Judges and/or Interlocutory Attorneys.

This program offers a total of 990 minutes of CLE including 90 minutes of ethics.

This live, multi-day webinar runs from Aug. 30 – Sept. 2 for about 4.5 hours each day between 12:00pm-6pm ET. 



Agenda:
NOTE: ALL TIMES are in EASTERN TIME. 

Monday Afternoon, Aug. 30

Pre-Filing Considerations
12:00-1:15 pm: Trademarks 101
Christine Farley, American University, Washington College of Law

1:45-2:45: Developing a Filing Strategy
Monica Riva Talley, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox

3:15-4:15: The Application Process
Jennifer Fraser, 
Dykema Gossett PLLC

Overview of International Trademark Basics
4:45 – 5:45: International Filing basics
Ashford Tucker, Fross Zelnick Lehman & Zissu, P.C.
Jonathan Gelchinsky, Pierce Atwood, LLP

Tuesday Afternoon, Aug. 31

Hands-on Training:

12:00-2:00:   Ordering trademark clearance search reports; analyzing search reports; preparing opinions
Richard C. Gilmore, Maschoff Brennan Laycock Gilmore Israelsen & Wright 
Kelu Sullivan, Kelly IP, LLP

2:30-4:30:  Responding effectively to Office Actions
Jeremy Blackowicz, Day Pitney LLP
Jonathan Gelchinsky, Pierce Atwood LLP
Supervising Senior Attorney, United States Patent and Trademark Office
Supervising Senior Attorney, United States Patent and Trademark Office
Managing Attorney, United States Patent and Trademark Office


Wednesday Afternoon, Sept. 1

Dispute Counseling and Strategies
12:00-1:00: Cease and Desist Campaigns
Danae Robinson &
Erik Combs, Pirkey Barber PLLC

TTAB Practice & Procedure
1:30-1:35: Intro to TTAB Practice
Jeremy Blackowicz, Day Pitney LLP

1:35 – 2:30: Ex Parte Appeals
Anna King, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.

3:00-4:30: Oppositions & Cancellations / Ethics
Clint Taylor &
Jason Joyal, Kelly IP, LLP

Dispute Counseling and Strategies
5:00-5:45: Dispute Investigations
Joel Beres, Stites & Harbison, PLLC


Thursday afternoon, Sept. 2

Board Practice Tips & Pitfalls 
12:00-2:00: TTAB Practice & Pitfalls
TTAB Interlocutory Attorney 
Administrative Trademark Judge, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Keith Toms (Moderator), McCarter & English, LLP

Dispute Counseling and Strategies
2:30-3:30: Consent & Co-Existence Agreements
Michael Antonucci, Fross Zelnick

4:00-5:00: USDC Litigation
Brian Darville, 
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.

Add to:

 

 

News

  • TMAcmts-7-19-logo AIPLA Submits Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Changes to Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020

    July 19, 2021

    On July 19, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Regarding Changes to Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) of 2020. The comments addressed seven aspects of the NPRM: (1) ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings; (2) the petition filing fee; (3) the identification of the real party in interest in a petition; (4) flexible response periods; (5) letters of protest; (6) attorney recognition; and (7) the proposed burden hours for private sector respondents.
  • Minerva-6-9-21-logo Supreme Court Rules to Keep the Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel in Minerva v. Hologic

    June 29, 2021

    On June 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to keep the doctrine of assignor estoppel, but with limits on its application. This ruling is consistent with the amicus brief filed by AIPLA on March 1, 2021.
  • Arthrex-Direct-logo Supreme Court Reverses and Vacates Federal Circuit in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

    June 21, 2021

    On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and vacated the Federal Circuit decision, dividing 5-4 on the judgment in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. In this majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that the unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) during inter partes review is constitutionally incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.
  • EndorseTC-6-15-logo AIPLA Endorses Nomination of Tiffany P. Cunningham to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    June 15, 2021

    On June 15, 2021, AIPLA submitted a letter to the Honorable Richard J. Durbin and the Honorable Charles L. Grassley, Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Committee on the Judiciary. This letter supported the nomination of Tiffany P. Cunningham, President Biden's nominee for Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. AIPLA wrote that Ms. Cunningham’s background and professional experience demonstrate that she is qualified to serve in that position, and that she would make an excellent addition to the Federal Circuit.
  • 1800Contacts-6-21-logo U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Vacates Final Order of the Federal Trade Commission in 1-800 Contacts Case

    June 11, 2021

    On June 11, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a Final Order of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), finding that 1-800 Contact’s “typical trademark settlement agreements” did not unreasonably restrain trade in violation the Section 5 of the FTC Act given the lack of direct evidence of an anticompetitive effect and the strong procompetitive justification of protecting 1-800 Contract’s trademarks. The Court of Appeals also found that it did not have sufficient experience with the type of conduct at issue to permit the abbreviated antitrust analysis favored by the Commission, applying a full-blown rule of reason analysis instead. The Court remanded the case to the Commission with instructions to dismiss it.