Lawyers.com Generic for Legal Information Website
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.18.07
In In Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc. (No, 2006-1309; April 12, 2007), a Federal Circuit panel affirms the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s refusal to register the mark LAWYERS.COM as generic for providing an online interactive database featuring information exchange in the fields of law, legal news, and legal services.
On appeal, Reed Elsevier asserted that (1) the TTAB improperly considered all of the services offered on the www.lawyers.com website in defining the genus of services at issue, rather than focusing only on the services listed in the application; and (2) the TTAB’s conclusion that “a central and inextricably intertwined element of [the claimed] genus is information about lawyers and information from lawyers” is not supported by substantial evidence.
The Court finds both contentions without merit, stating that “[A]s Reed and Martindale-Hubbard should know, for better or worse, lawyers are necessarily an integral part of the information exchange about legal services.” The panel then determines that the TTAB acted properly in reviewing the www.lawyers.com website for context to inform its understanding of the various terms in the recitation of services listed in the application, because “information exchange about lawyers is not at all discrete” from the services listed in the application. The Court also finds that substantial evidence supports the TTAB’s determination of what services the relevant public would understand “lawyers” to identify.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
