Federal Circuit split over ‘Naked’ condoms
China police seize 500,000 boxes of counterfeit condoms
fstockfoto / iStockphoto.com
The Federal Circuit’s finding that an Australian contraceptive wholesaler can challenge a rival’s US registration stands after the US Supreme Court declined a request for a review. Julia Anne Matheson of Potomac Law unpacks the decision.
The case, Australian Therapeutic Supplies v Naked (2020), analyses the requirements for establishing “standing” to challenge a mark—in this case a registration—in an action before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Both the challenger, an Australian contraceptive wholesaler who sold ‘Naked’ branded condoms into the US market, and US company Naked, began use of the identical mark for the same goods within months of each other.
The Australian company started shipping its ‘Naked’ condoms into the US in April 2003. The US company filed a US application to register the Naked mark for condoms a couple of months later—in August 2003.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at firstname.lastname@example.org
USPTO, mark, Australian Therapeutics, Naked, rights, abandonment, TTAB, condoms, US Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, trademark, contraceptive, wholesaler