Trademark Attorney • Copyright Attorney • Business Litigation
Austin and Dallas Trademark, Copyright and Business Litigation Attorneys
* Search
Search
## 
* Copyright Litigation and Trial
* Copyright Infringement
* Copyright Licensing
* Copyright Registration
* Litigation and Trial
* Cease and Desist
* Contract Disputes
* DMCA Takedown
* Local Counsel
* Trademark Litigation and Trial
* Trademark Infringement
* Unfair Competition
* False Advertising
* Counterfeiting
* Domain Name Disputes
* Trademark Registration
* Trademark and Trade Dress Licensing and Contracting
* Trade Dress Infringement
* Trade Dress Registration
* Appeals
* Cancellations
* Oppositions
* Refusals to Register
# About Us
We help businesses and artists with all of their intellectual property needs. Our experienced litigators represent clients in Copyright, Trademark, Trade Secret, Design Patent and other business disputes in Federal, State and County Courts. We also represent clients in trademark cancellation and opposition proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
Managing Attorney
* Construction and Engineering
* Consulting
* Consumer Products
* Entertainment
* Financial Services
* Food and Beverage
* Healthcare
* Manufacturing
* Professional Services
* Publishing
* Technology
* Trademark Litigation
* Copyright and Media Litigation
* Trade Secret Litigation
* Entertainment and Media Litigation
* Breach of Contract Litigation
* USPTO TTAB Cancellation and Opposition proceedings\*
* Trademark and Copyright Prosecution
* Strategic IP Counseling
* IP Licensing and Contracting
\* More Information
United State Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
We will occasionally post copyright and trademark law articles in our blog that we think are relevant to our current and prospective clients. If you think something we blog about might be an issue for your company, please reach out today and schedule a consultation.
Coming Soon
We will occasionally post news about our clients and share their successes with the public as
well. We are only as successful as our clients are and, we work hard to be a reliable trustworthy
representative for them. Please feel free to explore our site for more information about us
and what we do. If you have a copyright, trademark, or other business legal matter and have
questions about it please, give us a call or use our contact form. We can handle a wide-range of
small and mid-sized business matters that might not be fully detailed on this website, so if you
don't see something specific to your situation don't hesitate to reach out to us.
# Tag: Unfair Competition
!
Wendy B. Mills
Attorneys are often hired to defend against allegations raised in cease and desist letters or issue cease and desist letters against alleged trademark, copyright and/or patent infringers. Of course, cease and desist letters are not limited to allegations of infringement, but for purposes of this article, we are discussing only cease and desist demands relating to allegations of infringement. Often, a cease and desist letter is a helpful tool to begin settlement discussions to resolve a dispute before it becomes necessary to incur the expense and burden of a lawsuit. If the respective parties are reasonable in their respective demands or expectations, there is greater potential to resolve disputes without litigation. However, when a party takes the initiative in issuing a cease and desist letter, the party receiving the cease and desist letter may respond by filing a preemptive lawsuit seeking among other things, a Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement under Federal Trademark, Copyright, Patent and/or  law. 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq.
By filing the lawsuit first, the party that would have otherwise been the Defendant in a lawsuit as the alleged infringer now becomes the Plaintiff. Further, if the parties are in different jurisdictions and the lawsuit is brought in the alleged infringing parties’ jurisdiction, a question of personal jurisdiction over the defendant may arise and often adds considerable cost to any lawsuit. Accordingly, the decision to issue a cease and desist letter is more complex than many parties realize.
The above-referenced issues are not intended to be exhaustive, but merely examples of potential issues associated with issuing a cease and desist letter with respect to intellectual property infringement allegations.
\*\*Nothing herein is intended to be legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Posted in Tagged , , , , , , , , SearchSearch
## Recent Posts
## Categories
## Archives
Dallas
WB Mills, PLLC
2626 Cole Ave., Ste. 300
Dallas, TX 75204
(214) 396-6621
Austin(Satellite)
500 West 2nd Street, Ste. 1900
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 717-5262
Follow us on
© 2014-2025 IP Litigation and Trial – WB Mills, PLLCThis website collects data via Google Analytics.
. .
# Tag: TEAS
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has made a series of changes to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) since the beginning of 2017. The first wave of changes was enacted on January 14, 2017, and is primarily documented here. A second major change, effective as of February 17, 2017, concerns what the USPTO may require proving that marks and registrations are actually in use in commerce in the United States. The official press release for this change can be found here.
## January Changes
In January, the TMEP was amended in many small ways. This change included several small, but important, changes. For example, Section 301 has been amended to make it mandatory for documents in Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) proceedings to be filed using the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (“ESTTA”). Similarly, Section 306.01 was amended to update which types of correspondence with the USPTO may not be filed by facsimile transmission. These types of correspondence are applications for registration, drawings submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 2.51, 2.52, 2.72, or 2.173, requests for cancellation or amendment of a registration, certificates of registration surrendered for cancellation or amendment, correspondence that must be filed with the TTAB, Madrid-related correspondence submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 7.11, 7.14, 7.21, 7.23, 7.24, or 7.31, and documents that are statutorily required to be certified.
Another significant January update to the TMEP regards the filing and processing fees the USPTO collects. For example, the fee for electronically filing an application through TEAS Regular was previously $325 (per class) but is now $400 per class. However, an applicant may pay a reduced filing fee of $225 if they file a complete application using the USPTO’s TEAS Plus form, file certain communications regarding the application through TEAS, and agree to receive electronic communications concerning the application according to TMEP Section 819. Filing a Notice of Opposition or Petition to Cancel through ESTTA previously cost $300 per class, but now costs $400 per class. Various miscellaneous service fees were also updated, such as removing the previous fee to establish a deposit account. The January changes also includes changes to the paper filing fees.
## February Change
The second change, enacted on February 17, allows the USPTO to require more proof of use than before to verify the accuracy of claims that a trademark is used in commerce. Specifically, the USPTO “may require the submission of information, exhibits, affidavits or declarations, and such additional specimens of use as may be reasonably necessary for the USPTO to ensure that the register accurately reflects marks that are in use in commerce in the United States for all the goods/services identified in the registrations.” Based on the Department of Commerce’s press release, this will “benefit the public because it will facilitate the USPTO’s ability to assess and promote the integrity of the trademark register by encouraging accuracy in the identification of goods/services for which use in commerce or continued use is claimed.” This will also aid the USPTO in cancelling the registration or marks that either were never used in commerce or are no longer in use.
This change follows the results of an exhaustive “proof of use” pilot program that was completed in mid-2014, which focused on assessing and promoting the accuracy and integrity of the trademark register. This program involved the random selection of 500 registrations and required the owners to “submit proof of use of their marks for additional goods/services per class, in addition to the one specimen per class submitted with their affidavits, and to verify use of the additional goods/services during the statutory filing period.” 51% of the selections registrations failed to supply the additional proof necessary.
Overall, the recent changes to the TMEP are aimed at streamlining the application process and ensuring that newly registered marks are strong and actually in use. By lowering the filing fee for filing using the TEAS Plus form and agreeing to receive electronic communications, the USPTO is incentivizing faster, greener application processes. Requiring additional proof of a mark’s use in commerce will allow the USPTO to conduct a more thorough screening process of new marks, which in turn benefits consumers by providing more clarity with regards to the source of commercial goods.
Posted in Tagged , , , SearchSearch