- Ecofactor 23-1101.pdf

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Game Plan 24-1407.pdf

• Whether acquiring preexisting common-law trademark rights during litigation can supply priority and whether such an assignment is barred as an impermissible transfer of an ITU application or an invalid assignment in gross.: An asset purchase/assignment that transfers a mark together with the goodwill associated with the mark’s marketplace use is not an invalid assignment in gross; and statutory limits on assignment of intent-to-use applications do not prohibit acquiring preexisting common-law rights in an already-used mark, which may independently establish priority.

- IQE 24-1124.pdf [NEEDS_REVIEW]

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Agilent 23-2186.pdf [NEEDS_REVIEW]

• blocked: Model refused to process the PDF content; handle manually.

- Apex Bank 23-2143.pdf [NEEDS_REVIEW]

• Scope of similarity required for DuPont factor 6 (third-party marks) when goods/services are found highly similar under DuPont factor 2.: DuPont factor 6 does not require third-party marks to be used on identical goods/services; where the Board has found the parties’ services highly similar (even partially legally identical), it must consider third-party marks used on similarly related goods/services within that same scope and may not narrow the relevant marketplace to a more stringent, credit-card-only subset without justification.
• Effect of remand on DuPont factor 1 (similarity of the marks / commercial impression).: Because commercial strength/weakness evidence considered under DuPont factor 6 can affect the overall commercial impression under DuPont factor 1, vacatur and remand of factor 6 can require vacatur and remand of factor 1 for reconsideration in light of the corrected strength analysis.
• Review and affirmance of DuPont factor 2 finding on similarity/relatedness of services.: Substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that “credit card services” and broadly recited “banking and financing services” are highly similar (and legally identical in part), so the Board’s DuPont-factor-2 determination was affirmed.

- Bearbox 23-1922.pdf [NEEDS_REVIEW]

• Whether federal patent law preempts a state-law conversion claim seeking compensation for a defendant’s alleged use/monetization of unpatented technology.: A state-law claim is conflict-preempted where, as pled, it seeks patent-like protection (including royalty-like monetary relief) for the defendant’s use of unpatented ideas/technology and effectively repackages inventorship/infringement theories that would frustrate federal patent objectives of free public use of unpatented disclosures.