In ALPS SOUTH, LLC v. OHIO WILLOW WOOD CO., Complaint No. 2013-1452, In 2013-1488, 2014-1147 and 2014-1426, the Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal of an application for dismissal for lack of complaint, given that Alps` licence contained a restriction on use at the time the complaint was filed and Alps had not imposed this deficiency through the retroactive enforcement of a retroactive licence agreement amended by the c. License agreements must always be certified in writing and, preferably, notarized. The lack of a written license agreement poses many problems in the event of a trademark or other dispute. The notarized agreement also reduces the likelihood of disputes regarding the validity of the license. The amended license agreement eliminated the scope of the limitation on use and “eliminated the provision allowing the IEI to bring litigation against potential infringers if Alps objects.” The important thing for the District Court`s decision was that the amended agreement entered into force on 31 August 2008, the same date as the original licence agreement. The nunc pro tunc, which means “now for the time”, is most often seen in court decisions. However, the doctrine may apply to other circumstances in which a law or document applies retroactively.
The Federal Circuit set aside the dismissal of OWW`s motion to dismiss, set aside the ruling against OWW, and dismissed the case with the direction to dismiss the case. The Federal Circuit concluded that Alps` license contained a restriction on use at the time the complaint was filed, and such a limitation of rights led to a lack of alleged recourse, without naming the patent owner as a civil party. With respect to Alp`s retroactively amended licence, the Federal Circuit considered its earlier decisions, which confirmed that the nunc pro tuncassignments was not sufficient to confer a retroactive position. The Federal Circuit concluded that Alps must have all essential patent rights on the day the complaint was filed and that this requirement cannot be met retroactively. The three basic types of trademark licensing agreements are exclusive, alone and not exclusive. An exclusive licence means that the licensee has the exclusive possibility of selling the goods or services in question. An exclusive license means that the licensee has the right to sell the goods or services, but the right is shared with the licensor. A non-exclusive license means that the licensor retains the right to grant the trademark to other third parties and to continue to sell the goods or services itself.
With respect to the amended agreement, the Tribunal cited its 1998 decision in Enzo APA & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G., that the agreements used for the grant and assignment of marks have some similarities, but there are important differences. Licence documents should include, for example, quality control provisions, the nature of the licence issued, the date of entry into force of the licence and any specifications for the renewal of the agreement. These conditions are generally not part of the orders. When ownership of a trademark is transferred, it is important to have a written trademark assignment agreement. A properly developed contract can protect all parties involved. The USPTO will also not consider trademark transfer agreements to be valid unless they are in writing.
(nuhnk proh tuhnk): adj. In Latin for “now for the time”, it applies to the return to an earlier date of an order, judgment or filing of a document. . . .