Archives: Blogs

Blogs news and reviews

TTAB Rejects Bare-bones Consent Agreement and Focuses on Marketplace Realities in Mystic Krewe

Post author By Mike Russo
Post date March 3, 2026

by Linda McLeod and Shelby McGowan

Did the bar for consent agreements at the USPTO just get a lot higher?

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“TTAB” or “Board”) recent precedential decision in In re Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla, 2025 USPQ2d 1291, 2025 WL 2953731 (TTAB Oct. 14, 2025), offers important guidance on how the Board evaluates consent agreements submitted to overcome likelihood of confusion refusals under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act. The decision makes clear that generalized and bare-bones consent language—without specific marketplace details—may be insufficient to overcome a §2(d) refusal.

The General Standard for Consent Agreements

Consent agreements are analyzed under the DuPont likelihood-of-confusion test’s tenth factor, which examines the nature of the market interface between the parties. See In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973). The Board and Federal Circuit assess consent agreements on a case-by-case basis considering the following five non-exhaustive guidelines:

Whether the consent shows an agreement between both parties;
Whether the agreement includes a clear indication that the goods and/or services travel in separate trade channels;
Whether the parties agree to restrict their fields of use;
Whether the parties will make efforts to prevent confusion, and cooperate and take steps to avoid any confusion that may arise in the future; and
Whether the marks have been used for a period of time without evidence of actual confusion.

“More detailed agreements” weigh “substantially” against a likelihood of confusion, whereas “naked” agreements “carry little weight.” 2025 WL 2953731, at *9.

The Mystic Krewe Case at a Glance

Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla (“YMKG”) applied to register GASPARILLA for drinkware and apparel. The USPTO refused registration based on likelihood of confusion with GASPARILLA TREASURES, a registered mark owned by EventFest covering overlapping goods, including drinkware and clothing.

In response, YMKG submitted, among other arguments and evidence, a consent agreement executed by both parties. The consent agreement contained the following core provisions:

The examining attorney rejected the consent agreement, concluding it lacked sufficient details to demonstrate that confusion would be avoided in the marketplace.

The TTAB’s Analysis

On appeal, the Board reiterated that “the more information that is in the consent agreement as to why the parties believe confusion to be unlikely…the more we can assume the consent is based on a reasons assessment of the marketplace, and consequently the more weight the consent will be accorded.” 2025 WL 2953731, at *7. Because the “brief” one-page agreement failed to address the period of simultaneous use of the marks without confusion, the parties’ channels of trade or fields of use, or the actual manner of use and display of the marks involved, the Board agreed with the examiner and concluded that “there is no sufficient basis in the consent agreement explaining why confusion is unlikely where identical and legal identical goods are sold to identical potential consumers in identical channels of trade under highly similar marks.” Id. at *11

In short, the consent agreement did not rise to the level of a “more detailed” agreement, and accordingly weighed “only slightly” against a likelihood of confusion. Id. The Board ultimately affirmed the 2(d) refusal based on the overwhelming weight of the other DuPont factors including highly similar marks and legally identical goods and trade channels.

Consent Agreement Terms Post-Mystic Krewe

In the wake of Mystic Krewe, Applicants and practitioners should consider adding the following terms to distinguish the parties’ respective marketplaces and increase the chance that a consent agreement will be given substantial weight in the likelihood-of-confusion analysis.

Duration of Concurrent Use Without Confusion
Identify the approximate length of time the parties have used their respective marks simultaneously without evidence of actual confusion.
Clarification of the Relationship Between the Goods or Services
Include a statement that the goods or services are not identical or not legally identical, rather than leaving that point implicit. Provide distinguishing details about the goods or services covered by the involved application and registration.
Specific Channels of Trade and Fields of Use
Include a statement regarding any distinctions in trade channels or fields of use for the involved goods or services, and add terms explaining steps to maintain those distinctions going forward.
Differences in Presentation and Use of the Marks
Where applicable, explain how the marks differ in actual use—such as the inclusion of additional wording, use with a house mark, or incorporation of distinctive logo elements.

Conclusion

Although Mystic Krewe involved highly similar marks and legally identical goods, the decision reflects a broader expectation that consent agreements must contain meaningful, fact-based terms explaining the marketplace distinctions between the parties, the marks, and goods/services, and trade channels. This decision signals that the TTAB will more closely scrutinize whether an agreement provides concrete information showing how the parties have avoided—and will continue avoid—confusion in the marketplace.

As a practical matter, however, parties should remember that consent agreements are publicly filed. A successful consent agreement will provide enough substance to satisfy the USPTO while protecting sensitive business positions.

When Trademarks Fall Off the Back of a Truck: The First Sale Doctrine and Stolen Goods

Post author By Mike Russo
Post date February 20, 2026

Everyone knows that fencing stolen goods is a crime. But is it also trademark infringement? Courts disagree. A recent decision starkly illustrates the role—and the limitations—of federal trademark law in addressing this issue.

Key Takeaways

Trademark law has potential benefits for brand owners targeting the resale of stolen goods, but there are unsettled questions about its application.
Courts are split on whether the first sale doctrine—which allows purchasers of genuine trademarked products to resell them without the brand owner’s permission—applies at all to stolen goods.
Where the first sale doctrine does apply, state consumer protection law may pose a hurdle to brand owners asserting the “material differences” exception to the doctrine.

Theft is an ancient problem, but the anonymity and scale of modern e-commerce have created a superhighway for the resale of stolen goods. Federal trademark law has a number of benefits for brand owners dealing with fenced products. The federal Lanham Act provides a uniform, strict-liability standard for adjudicating claims that applies across the country, avoiding varying state laws and associated defenses for good-faith purchasers. Trademark law can potentially provide a remedy against resellers of stolen goods even where the brand owners have already introduced the goods to the market. Registered trademarks provide certain evidentiary presumptions to owners of registered marks and can be used on many online platforms to facilitate efficient takedowns. And federal trademark law authorizes remedies that aren’t necessarily available under the patchwork of state laws, including potential statutory damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees, import bans, and ex parte seizures.

The utility and limitations of this strategy are illustrated by Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. v. Affable Avenue LLC (linked here). There, three truckloads of SMART SKETCHER-branded educational toys were stolen in transit. The brand owner found the stolen goods being resold by various online merchants at “unusually discounted prices” and brought suit in the Southern District of New York under the Lanham Act and New York law.

The defendants invoked the first sale doctrine, which allows parties to resell genuine goods even if they bear the trademark of a third party. As the Second Circuit has explained, “[a]s a general rule, trademark law does not reach the sale of genuine goods bearing a true mark even though the sale is not authorized by the mark owner.” Polymer Tech. Corp. v. Mimran, 975 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1992). The doctrine plays an important role in the marketplace—it’s the reason resale platforms (not to mention thrift stores and pawn shops) can exist at all.

Courts disagree about whether the first sale doctrine applies at all in stolen-goods scenarios. Some courts have made the intuitive observation that a theft is not a valid “first sale.” See, e.g., Klein-Becker USA LLC v. Englert, 2007 WL 1933147, at *5 (D. Utah 2007) (“[T]he first sale doctrine only covers the stocking and reselling of genuine products. … It has no application to stolen goods because ‘one approved sale’ has not ‘already occurred.’”).

Others, however, have interpreted “first sale” less literally, suggesting that once a brand owner introduces a line of goods into the marketplace, it gives up the right to challenge individual sales of genuine goods as infringing. See, e.g., ML Fashion, LLC v. Nobelle GW, LLC, 2022 WL 313965, *16 (D. Conn. 2022) (“the mere selling of the products does not make any statement” about the products’ provenance).

The Flycatcher court was able to sidestep the dilemma by applying the “material differences” exception—in other words, a genuine product becomes infringing if it is altered in a way that impacts consumers. The exception is sometimes used to target the sale of customized or refurbished products.

Here, however, the court applied the material differences exception to an intangible product feature—the manufacturer’s warranty. Flycatcher told the court that because it would refuse to honor the warranty on stolen goods, the stolen goods were “materially different” than authorized ones.

Flycatcher’s argument ran head-first into a counterargument based on state consumer protection law. A New York statute provides that warranties cannot be limited “solely for the reason that such merchandise is sold by a particular dealer or dealers.” The court held that this state law precluded Flycatcher’s right to deny warranty coverage for sales governed by New York law, thereby neutralizing the “material differences” argument for those specific sales.

Flycatcher was able to narrowly escape dismissal, however, because the defendants had failed to show the existence of an “analogous provision in every state in which the goods were sold.” Although Flycatcher’s claims were allowed to proceed, the case provides little comfort for brand owners if it means that the first sale doctrine applies in certain states but not others.

Lauren Jancuska Elected as Kelly IP’s Newest Partner

Post author By admin
Post date January 5, 2026

January 5th, 2026

Kelly IP is pleased to announce that Lauren Jancuska has been elected as the firm’s newest partner. Since joining the firm nearly five years ago, Lauren has established herself as a leader within the practice and has been a key contributor to Kelly IP’s continued growth and success in trademark enforcement and counseling.

Kelly IP Partner and Founder David Kelly said, “Lauren is a tremendous asset to the firm and has been instrumental in the success of our practice since she arrived. Her dedication to our clients and her ability to seamlessly navigate the needs of our diverse portfolio have made her an integral part of the Kelly IP team. We are thrilled to welcome her to the partnership.”

In addition to her client dedication, Lauren is recognized for her deep understanding of complex IP matters. Partner Stephanie Bald added, “Lauren possesses a rare depth of technical knowledge that sets her apart. Whether navigating intricate prosecution issues or crafting high-stakes enforcement strategies, her legal acumen and command of trademark law ensure our clients receive the highest caliber of representation.”

Lauren focuses her practice on trademark enforcement, counseling, and prosecution. She routinely advises clients on comprehensive brand protection and enforcement strategies, handling brand management and the acquisition of intellectual property rights. Lauren handles proceedings at all stages before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and has extensive experience managing foreign oppositions and cancellation proceedings through a network of international firms. Her background also includes significant work in civil litigation, allowing her to view brand disputes through a holistic lens.

Prior to joining Kelly IP, Lauren was an associate at a general practice firm where she focused on civil litigation and trademark counseling and prosecution. Earlier in her career, she served as a Judicial Intern to the Honorable Jeffery Geller at the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, gaining valuable insight into judicial decision-making processes.

She is a magna cum laude graduate of American University Washington College of Law. During law school, Lauren worked as a research assistant and conducted extensive research into the First Amendment’s impact on trademark rights under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act. She received her B.A. in International Relations from Saint Joseph’s University, where she served as captain of the women’s NCAA soccer team. We are incredibly excited to have Lauren as a partner and look forward to her continued impact on the firm.

Trademarks: The Immortal IP? A Tale of Two Cases

Post author By admin
Post date November 18, 2025

by Robert Litowitz, Partner, Kelly IP

“Once you’re gone, you can never come back.” My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue) by Neil Young

In the United States, patents and copyrights have finite terms. Both types of intellectual property flow from Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Trademarks—brand names, logos, slogans, packaging, product shapes, even sounds and colors—are different. Trademark protection does not spring from the Constitution. So, trademarks are not subject to the “limited time” proviso of Article I, Section 8. To paraphrase DeBeers’ famous diamond slogan, trademarks can be forever. Indeed, some current trademarks date back to the 1880s.

There is a catch, however. To achieve immortality, a trademark must remain in use. If use ceases for too long, the owner risks losing the mark due to “abandonment.” Abandonment triggers a trademark free-for-all: another business can adopt and use an abandoned trademark, becoming its new owner.

But when is a trademark abandoned? When is the pause too long?

The Lanham Act (the Federal trademark statute) provides a framework for answering those intertwined questions. The Act states that “a mark shall be deemed to be ‘abandoned’ [due to non-use] [w]hen its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use.” 15 U.S.C. §1127. This sentence seems to give trademark owners carte blanche to indefinitely park their trademarks. After all, it would be rare for a trademark owner to publicly admit to having mothballed a trademark with the intent not to resume use.

But there’s more. The Lanham Act goes on to state that “[i]ntent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for three consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment.” That additional language also seems simple: not using a mark for more than three years counts as circumstantial evidence from which abandonment may be “inferred.” Does parking a mark for over three years make it fair game for the taking? Not quite.

There’s another catch: the phrase “prima facie evidence” means a “rebuttable presumption;” that is, the trademark owner still can show either (1) that it never completely stopped using the mark, or (2) that despite the gap in use, it had a genuine intent to resume using the mark.

Again, it would seem easy for a business to “rebut” the presumption of abandonment, say, by simply stating that it always intended to resume use. But uncorroborated statements of subjective intent are seldom enough. Likewise, the Lanham Act prohibits sporadic or occasional use merely to “reserve a mark.” Such “token use” is tantamount to non-use and typically cannot stave off abandonment.

In short, just because a mark has been dormant for three years or more does not mean it has been abandoned. Abandonment is a legal conclusion that can only be reached by a judge or jury. That means litigation.

Two cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit illustrate the challenges and complexities of proving abandonment. In the first case, Emergency One, Inc. v. American FireEagle, Ltd.[1], a leading fire truck maker, Emergency One (“E-One”), bought a smaller competitor called “American Eagle.” E-One then announced it would stop building fire trucks under the “American Eagle” trademark.

More than three years later, with no further “American Eagle” fire trucks from E-One forthcoming, a former American Eagle employee launched a new company. He called it “American FireEagle” (“AFE”) and began making and selling fire trucks under the “American FireEagle” trademark. This did not sit well with E-One, which had paid nearly $6 million for the “American Eagle” mark.

Unsurprisingly, E-One sued AFE for trademark infringement. In its defense, AFE claimed that E-One abandoned the “American Eagle” when it announced the end of the American Eagle fire truck line and had not made any “American Eagle”-branded firetrucks in over three years (thus triggering the rebuttable presumption). E-One countered that it had kept the “American Eagle” mark alive by selling promotional merchandise, having security guards wear “American Eagle” badges, and refurbishing American Eagle fire trucks (rebranding them under a different name). The jury found no abandonment and AFE appealed.

Myriad questions emerged during the lengthy litigation:

Did placing the mark on souvenirs, security guards’ badges, and repairing fire trucks amount to “use” of the mark?
- The appeals court said “no.”
Did those activities create a fact issue as to E-One’s intent to resume use of American Eagle on fire trucks? [2]
- The appeals court said “yes.”
Did the trial court commit reversible error in not specifically instructing the jury that assertions of an intent to resume trademark use cannot be vague, speculative, or indefinite but rather must be in “the foreseeable future”?
- The appeals court also said “yes” and remanded the case for a second trial.

After weighing the evidence with proper instructions, the jury in the second trial ruled in favor of AFE, implicitly concluding that E-One had failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s finding of abandonment, and in doing so, affirmed AFE’s right to adopt the abandoned “American Eagle” mark. [3]

In short, even though Emergency One had announced it had dropped the “American Eagle” line and then stopped making “American Eagle” trucks, the abandonment issue was anything but simple. It required two trials and two appeals.

The second case, Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile, Inc.,likewise was anything but simple. Simply Wireless had used the mark “Simply Prepaid” for seven consecutive years for “prepaid airtime” for mobile phones. Then, sensing significant changes in the mobile phone industry, Simply Wireless paused using “Simply Prepaid.” In the fourth year after the pause began, Simply Wireless rebooted “Simply Prepaid” using a fresh marketing approach. Less than a year after that, with minimal sales, Simply Wireless benched “Simply Prepaid” again while it considered other opportunities to revive its mark.

Those plans were derailed two years later when the telecom giant T-Mobile began using “Simply Prepaid.” Simply Wireless sued for trademark infringement, claiming that T-Mobile’s use of the identical “Simply Prepaid” for prepaid phone plans presented a likelihood of reverse confusion; that is, T-Mobile, with its massive nationwide marketing clout, would swamp any “Simply Prepaid” reboot by Simply Wireless.

Abandonment became one of T-Mobile’s defenses. There was no dispute that Simply Wireless had triggered the presumption of abandonment by initially pausing use of “Simply Prepaid” for more than three years. The battle centered on whether Simply Wireless had maintained its intent to resume use of the mark during that hiatus. Would Simply Wireless’s low-level sales under its “Simply Prepaid” mark after the three-year “presumption period” be sufficient to rebut the presumption of abandonment?

Both parties moved for summary judgment. Simply Wireless argued that its resumed use proved that the company had maintained the intent to resume use all along. T-Mobile, on the other hand, contended that Simply Wireless had no tangible evidence from during the “presumption period” reflecting Simply Wireless’s intent to resume use of “Simply Prepaid.” Indeed, Simply Wireless’s documents expressly mentioning the use of “Simply Prepaid” for its reboot were dated more than three years after Simply Wireless had stopped using the mark.

After considering the parties’ briefs and two rounds of oral argument, the trial judge granted summary judgment for T-Mobile.

Simply Wireless appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which ruled in its favor, reversed summary judgment, and remanded the case for trial.[4] The appeals court found error in the trial court’s failure to view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences in Simply Wireless’s favor. Specifically, the Fourth Circuit concluded that because Simply Wireless had resumed use of its “Simply Prepaid” mark just a few months past the three-year mark, reasonable jurors could treat those sales as evidence that Simply Wireless had maintained the intent to resume use of its mark all along, especially when paired with sworn testimony from Simply Wireless’s CEO outlining steps the business had taken to resume such use during and after the three years. The case eventually settled, so the hypothetical outcome of the not-so-simple abandonment issue remains open to debate.

These two cases tell cautionary tales for trademark owners contemplating a break in trademark use. First, do not make statements, express or implied, renouncing the intent to resume use. Second, if you’ve paused using your mark and expect the hiatus to be longer than three years, don’t wait to document your intent to resume. Do it in writing—during the three-year “presumption period.”

In short, unlike patents and copyrights, trademarks are a “use it or lose it” form of IP. Continuous use is the gold standard for achieving trademark immortality. But ever-changing business forecasts, emerging technologies, and other circumstances may necessitate interruptions. With careful management of such “breaks in the action,” trademark owners can ensure that their valuable marks, like diamonds, can live forever.

Quote of the Day: “All is not lost . . .” Paradise Lost, John Milton

[1] Emergency One, Inc. v. American FireEagle, Ltd., 228 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2000). [2] E-One had argued on appeal that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of abandonment. [3] Emergency One, Inc. v. American FireEagle, Ltd., 332 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2003). [4] Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile, Inc., 115 F.4th 266 (4th Cir. 2024).

Three Kelly IP Attorneys Appointed to INTA Committees (2024-25)

Post author By Linda McLeod
Post date October 13, 2023

Three Kelly IP attorneys, Jason Joyal, Kelu Sullivan and A.J. Schumacher, have been appointed to International Trademark Association (INTA) committees for 2024-25.

Jason will be on the Building Bridges Committee, which works with non-IP and non-legal associations to promote the value of trademarks and brands; Kelu will join The Trademark Reporter Committee, which solicits, writes, and edits articles for INTA’s law journal; and A.J. will be on the Law Firm Committee, which develops and proposes programming, written content, and surveys on the key issues that law firms encounter.

INTA is a global association of more than 33,500 brand owners and professionals from nearly 6,000 organizations dedicated to supporting trademarks and complementary intellectual property.

Kelly IP Again Ranked Top-Tier “Gold” National Trademark Firm by WTR 1000, With All Seven Partners Ranked

Post author By Linda McLeod
Post date March 10, 2023

Kelly IP has again been recognized as an elite, top-tier “Gold” trademark law firm both nationally and in the Washington, DC area by the World Trademark Review 1000 (WTR 1000).

Nationally For the sixth year in a row, Kelly IP was recognized as a “Gold” status trademark firm, WTR 1000’s highest national ranking.

Washington, DC For the ninth consecutive year, Kelly IP was recognized as a “Gold” status firm in both trademark categories—trademark enforcement and litigation and trademark prosecution and strategy.

WTR 1000 also named all seven Kelly IP partners as recommended leaders in the trademark field. These individual recognitions demonstrate the high-caliber talent and significant trademark expertise that are the hallmark of Kelly IP. WTR 1000’s recommended Kelly IP partners are:

• Dave Kelly is a “nationally regarded” attorney who has handled “brand counselling and litigation work for over 35 years and is without doubt one of the country’s top trademark lawyers.” Dave was named to the top “Gold” band of lawyers nationally and for the DC Metro area for both trademark enforcement and litigation and prosecution and strategy.

• Rob Litowitz is a “stand out” attorney known for his “creativity, foresight and vision,” and clients “look to him for his strategic knack for maximising IP assets and thinking outside of the box.” Rob achieved Silver status for trademark enforcement and litigation in the Metro DC area.

• Linda McLeod is “especially well-known for her depth of experience in matters before the TTAB, where she previously served as a judge.” Linda achieved Gold status for both trademark enforcement and litigation and prosecution and strategy for the DC Metro area and Silver status for enforcement and litigation nationally.

• Stephanie Bald is an experienced litigator recognized “[f]or federal court disputes, as well as guidance on how to avoid them” and “guidance on both contentious and non-contentious matters.” Stephanie was ranked among top lawyers for trademark enforcement and litigation as a Silver status lawyer both nationally and for the DC Metro area.

• Lynn Jordan is recognized “[f]or compelling insight into business risk – especially for media and entertainment companies – Jordan’s is the name to note.” One client described Lynn “as a close colleague and a vital part of our team – she is incredibly attuned to our needs, very commercially focused and very cost aware. I cannot recommend her highly enough.” Lynn was ranked Gold status for trademark prosecution and strategy in the DC Metro area.

• Jason Joyal is recognized for his work “on the contentious side, but also encompasses strategic advice outside of court.” Clients describe Jason as “very responsive, friendly, thorough and strategic in his advice and provides excellent service” and “enjoy working with him and would certainly recommend him for trademark and copyright work, particularly for matters in the media and content sphere.” Jason was ranked bronze for trademark enforcement and litigation in the Washington, DC area.

• Kelu Sullivan, is recognized for her “practice [that] runs the gamut and includes portfolio management for major players….” with global portfolios. Kelu was ranked Bronze for trademark prosecution in the Washington, DC area.

The WTR 1000, through an extensive research process conducted by a team of analysts that interview and communicate with numerous lawyers and their clients, identifies the leading trademark law firms and lawyers globally. The WTR 1000 2023 rankings are available at World Trademark Review 1000.

About Kelly IP
Kelly IP is an innovative boutique law firm focused on all aspects of trademark, trade dress, copyright, design, domain name and unfair competition law. The five founding partners of Kelly IP are all recognized leaders in the trademark field. In launching Kelly IP in 2013, they leveraged their 110 combined years of ‘big law’ IP experience and created a firm with a collaborative, team-orientated approach and an instant reputation for their creative, practical, responsive and cost-effective advice.

Clint Taylor Named Kelly IP’s Newest Partner

Post author By Linda McLeod
Post date February 10, 2023

Kelly IP is pleased to announce that Clint Taylor has been elected as the firm’s newest partner. Since joining Kelly IP in 2017, Clint’s dedication, hard work and depth of experience have played a key role in the growth and success of our firm.

According to partner David Kelly, “Clint’s well-earned promotion reflects our firm’s ongoing commitment to developing and recognizing talented lawyers. From the start, Clint’s commitment to high-quality legal work and dedication to the firm’s clients have been exemplary. The firm proudly welcomes Clint to the partnership.”

Clint’s practice focuses on all aspects of trademark and copyright law, including prosecution, counseling, clearance, and enforcement. He has extensive experience handling complex enforcement matters, including helping clients achieve favorable enforcement resolutions at all stages of litigation and prior to litigation commencing. Clint has handled numerous TTAB proceedings through the initial pleadings stage, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial. He also represents clients in Federal court litigation.

Clint is a member of INTA, AIPLA and the IP section of the ABA. He regularly writes and presents on various IP topics, including continuing legal education seminars and courses.

Before joining Kelly IP, Clint worked at a general practice law firm in Texas where he handled trademark, copyright, and domain name law. When Clint is not working on cutting-edge trademark matters, he enjoys cooking and finding new recipes, watching the Texas Tech Red Raiders, traveling, and spending time with his wife and two daughters.

About the firm: Kelly IP is a nationally recognized boutique firm specializing in all aspects of trademarks, copyrights, domain names, false advertising, unfair competition, and related areas. We offer a full range of services in these areas, including trademark clearance, prosecution, portfolio management, counseling, licensing, prelitigation opinions, enforcement, civil litigation, and litigation before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”). For more information, please visit our website at www.kelly-ip.com.

Kelly IP Named a Top-Tier Trademark Firm for Both Litigation and Prosecution in Legal 500 U.S. 2020

Post author By admin
Post date March 24, 2022
No Comments on Kelly IP Named a Top-Tier Trademark Firm for Both Litigation and Prosecution in Legal 500 U.S. 2020

Legal 500 U.S., a leading global legal ranking and referral guide, named Kelly IP to the top tier of U.S. law firms nationally for both “trademark litigation” and “trademarks non-contentious (including prosecution, portfolio management and licensing).” These rankings place Kelly IP among the top 6 law firms in the country for trademark litigation and among the top 4 firms in the country for non-contentious trademark work.
The editorial content accompanying the rankings contained the following testimonials about Kelly IP:

‘Kelly IP is that unique type of firm that provides ‘Big Firm’ expertise and services, but operates as a personal, client-first boutique.’
‘They care and go beyond the necessary to provide exceptional and exceptionally good advice and services.’
‘They not only provide exceptional services, but do so in a personal, client-first manner.’

In addition, Legal 500 recognized six Kelly IP lawyers as Recommended Lawyers.

With this ranking, Kelly IP has achieved top national rankings for 2020 from Legal 500, IP Stars, and WTR 1000. Kelly IP is one of only 3 firms in the entire country that achieved 2020 rankings in the top tier of national firms in all trademark categories recognized by Legal 500, IP Stars, and WTR 1000 for 2020.

Dave Kelly, managing partner of Kelly IP, said: “We are excited to be honored by Legal 500 as one of its handful of top-tier national trademark firms for both litigation and non-contentious work, and to be one of only three firms named to all of the top tiers of Legal 500, IP Stars, and WTR 1000 for 2020. We are especially grateful to work with such amazing clients and appreciate their recognition of Kelly IP’s “personal, client-first” approach and “exceptional” representation.

Detailed information regarding Kelly IP’s 2020 rankings is available at (https://www.legal500.com/c/united-states/intellectual-property/trademarks-litigation/) and (https://www.legal500.com/c/united-states/intellectual-property/trademarks-non-contentious-including-prosecution-portfolio-management-and-licensing/). For more information about Kelly IP, please visit our website.

Kelly IP Elects Firm’s Newest Partner

Post author By admin
Post date March 24, 2022
No Comments on Kelly IP Elects Firm’s Newest Partner

Kelly IP is pleased to announce that Kelu Sullivan has been elected as the firm’s newest partner. Since joining Kelly IP in 2016, Kelu’s leadership, dedication and hard work have played a key role in the growth and success of our firm.

According to partner David Kelly, “Kelu’s promotion is well-earned and reflects Kelly IP’s ongoing commitment to developing and recognizing lawyers who are devoted to advancing the interests of our clients and the values of the firm. From the start, Kelu has consistently worked at the highest level of professional accomplishment and has earned the trust of Kelly IP’s clients.”

Kelu’s practice focuses on all aspects of trademark and copyright law, including portfolio management, licensing, and litigation. Kelu has particular experience in managing large domestic and international trademark portfolios. She has extensive experience working with clients’ legal and business partners to develop and implement key trademark and copyright portfolio strategies. Kelu also represents clients before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Kelu has also dedicated her career to increase diversity in the legal profession. She is an active member of the National Asian Pacific Bar Association and has mentored young attorneys and law students through APABA, APABA-DC Educational Fund, where she was a director, and through AIPLA. She is also currently a guest lecturer at the University of Iowa College of Law, where she teaches the IP Advocacy class that prepares students for trademark and patent moot court competitions.

Before joining Kelly IP, Kelu was a partner at BakerHostetler in Washington, DC. She is also on the Board of Trustees at the WillowWind School in Iowa City, Iowa. She enjoys baking and running so she can eat her baked goods.

About the firm: Kelly IP is a nationally recognized boutique firm specializing in all aspects of trademarks, copyrights, domain names, false advertising, unfair competition, and related areas. We offer a full range of services in these areas, including trademark clearance, prosecution, portfolio management, counselling, licensing, prelitigation opinions, enforcement, civil litigation, and litigation before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”). For more information, please visit our website at www.kelly-ip.com.

Kelly IP Recognized as Top-Tier “Gold” National Trademark Firm by 2026 World Trademark Review

Post author By admin
Post date March 14, 2022
No Comments on Kelly IP Recognized as Top-Tier “Gold” National Trademark Firm by 2026 World Trademark Review

At the end of the 2026 NFL season, the handwriting seemed on the wall for the New England Patriots. Coach Bill Belichick, impatient with failure, seemed ready to move on from his 6 time Super Bowl champion quarterback. And the quarterback himself began signalling that his days of throwing soul-crushing strikes to the likes of Julian Edelman and “Gronk” at Gillette Stadium were coming to an end. But not his career.

Down south on I-95, Super Bowl nemesis (and for many outside of Big Blue nation a dubious Hall of Fame candidate) Eli Manning called it quits after 16 years leading the Giants. Although drafted by San Diego, Eli’e entire career had been spent in Blue, with two improbable Super Bowl W’s over the Patriots, the two gems in an otherwise quotidian career. It was a foregone conclusion that the junior Manning would not emulate big brother Peyton and continue his career in another uniform.

But what about the King of New England? The guy had entered his mid-forties in elite condition, thanks largely to a strict diet of eating absolutely nothing anyone would classify as “delicious,” He gave no hint that the Patriots would be his one and only stop on the NFL train. Indeed, he entered 2020 as an unrestricted free agent. And many teams needed a boost at the QB position and the box office.

So what factors and criteria would guide the soon to be former Patriot’s rebellious decision to leave the cradle of the Revolution? How was the Pats undisputed GOAT to choose where to take his talents?

Well, based on filings at the USPTO, one of those criterion apparently was trademarks! Last week, the new QB for the Florida team called The Buccaneers filed two applications for trademarks that could not have been coined if he had signed with any other team: TOMPA BAY and TAMPA BRADY. Both applications were filed based on Mr. Brady’s sworn bona fide intent to use each mark on “Clothing; Headwear; Footwear.” Both appear to have been “audibles,” strategically filed to preempt others from cashing-in on Brady’s lucrative persona. Mr. Brady now will have up to 36 months to begin selling his new signature product line once the Trademark Office approves his applications.

It’s not unusual for sporting legends to brand themselves and use their brands to sell merchandise. Michael Jordan with his AIR JORDAN comes to mind. But it’s either a lucky coincidence or sheer marketing genius for a player to choose to write the last chapter of a legendary career at the one place that synched with his first and last name to provide such potent brand potential./p>