ITC Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • About
  • ITC Updates
  • Advanced Topics
  • Domestic Industry
  • Discovery
  • Commission Opinions
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
Select Page
ITC’s Trademark Decisions Are Not Entitled To Preclusive Effect

ITC’s Trademark Decisions Are Not Entitled To Preclusive Effect

by Jones Day's ITC Litigation Team | May 16, 2019 | Estoppel, Preclusion, Trademark / Trade Dress

  Last week the Federal Circuit held that, like patent decisions, ITC decisions pertaining to trademark infringement and validity are not entitled to preclusive effect.  Swagway v ITC, No. 2018-1672 (May 9, 2019).  The Court reached its conclusion...
ITC’s Trademark Decisions Are Not Entitled To Preclusive Effect

The ITC is Not Just for Patents – Brand Owners are Welcome Too

by Jones Day's ITC Litigation Team | Jan 18, 2019 | Exclusion Orders, Trademark / Trade Dress

  When people think of actions filed with the International Trade Commission (ITC) under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, they likely think of patent infringement cases. And the majority of ITC cases do involve patents, but section 337 protects...
ITC’s Trademark Decisions Are Not Entitled To Preclusive Effect

Trademark and Trade Dress: What to consider for secondary meaning?

by Jones Day's ITC Litigation Team | Nov 9, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeals, Trademark / Trade Dress

  As explained in a recent Jones Day Commentary here, the Federal Circuit clarified the tests for determining secondary meaning and trade dress infringement. Converse v. ITC, No. 16-2497 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2018). First, the Federal Circuit...
ITC’s Trademark Decisions Are Not Entitled To Preclusive Effect

ITC Clarifies Domestic Industry Requirement for Unregistered Trade Dress

by Jones Day's ITC Litigation Team | Nov 28, 2017 | Commission Opinions, Domestic Industry, Exclusion Orders, Trademark / Trade Dress

The ITC issued an Opinion finding a violation of Section 337 and issuing a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.  Of note, the Commission clarified that the “domestic industry” for unregistered trade dress need not be defined by the...

About this blog

Categories

  • 100 Day Pilot Program
  • Carveout
  • Claim Construction
  • Commission Opinions
  • Confidentiality
  • Default
  • Discovery
  • Domestic Industry
  • Enforcement Proceedings
  • Estoppel
  • Evidentiary Issues
  • Exclusion Order Modification
  • Exclusion Orders
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Federal Circuit Appeals
  • General Exclusion Orders
  • Importation Requirement
  • Infringement
  • Initial Determinations
  • Invalidity
  • ITC Rulemaking
  • ITC Updates
  • Jurisdiction
  • Licensee-Based Domestic Industry
  • Motion Practice
  • Other News
  • Patent Eligible Subject Matter
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Preclusion
  • Prior Art Issues
  • Redesign
  • Remedial Orders
  • Settlement
  • Standing
  • Stay
  • Summary Determination
  • Trademark / Trade Dress
  • Uncategorized

Archives

Links

www.jonesday.com

About Jones Day's Intellectual Property Practice

Subscribe to Jones Day publications

    • Privacy
    • Cookie Policy
    • About
    • Advanced Topics
    • Contributors
    • Contacts
    • ITC Updates

    Copyright © 2026 Jones Day. All rights reserved.

    The content of this blog is intended to convey general information about litigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. It is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Jones Day does not sponsor, endorse, verify, or warrant the accuracy of the information found at external sites or subsequent links. The content of any Internet e-mail sent to Jones Day or any of its lawyers at the e-mail addresses set forth in this blog will not create an attorney-client relationship and will not be treated as confidential. All uses of the contents of this blog, other than personal uses, are prohibited.