Search the archive.

In his speech on 9 October 2021, celebrating the 1911 Xinhai Revolution which ended China’s last imperial dynasty, Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed to reach “peaceful unification” with Taiwan under a “one country, two systems” arrangement.[1]

Still, Xi has also repeatedly warned against “Taiwan independence”, arguing that the current Taiwanese government is the strongest enemy of Chinese unification and the biggest hurdle in the way of a “great rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation”.[2] These kinds of statements reaffirm Xi’s clear understanding that as long as Taiwan remains independent, and unconquered, China’s dream of national greatness can never be realised.

In his speech on 9 October 2021, celebrating the 1911 Xinhai Revolution which ended China’s last imperial dynasty, Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed to reach “peaceful unification” with Taiwan under a “one country, two systems” arrangement.[1]

Still, Xi has also repeatedly warned against “Taiwan independence”, arguing that the current Taiwanese government is the strongest enemy of Chinese unification and the biggest hurdle in the way of a “great rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation”.[2] These kinds of statements reaffirm Xi’s clear understanding that as long as Taiwan remains independent, and unconquered, China’s dream of national greatness can never be realised.

Predicted Trends in Tech Startup Landscape. Experts predict that tech startups will increasingly focus on sustainability, health tech, and personalized experiences. The world is becoming more conscious of the environmental impact of technology, and startups are stepping up to the challenge. From developing energy-efficient hardware to creating software solutions that promote sustainable practices, these startups are paving the way for a greener future. Health tech is another area that holds immense promise for startups. With rising concerns about public health, startups are leveraging technology to revolutionize healthcare delivery. From telemedicine platforms that connect patients with doctors remotely to wearable devices that monitor vital signs, these startups are making healthcare more accessible and efficient. Personalized experiences are also set to become a key focus for tech startups. As consumer expectations evolve, startups will strive to create customized experiences that cater to specific needs while utilizing advanced technologies. From personalized recommendations based on user preferences to tailor-made products and services, startups are harnessing the power of data and AI to provide unique and memorable experiences.

How Tech Startups Foster Creativity and Innovation Unlike established corporations, startups often have the freedom to experiment and take risks. This entrepreneurial culture nurtures creativity and encourages employees to think outside the box, leading to breakthrough innovations. Startups also promote a collaborative environment that values diverse perspectives, fostering innovation that can disrupt industries and drive forward-looking change.

Robert, 7-26-2021, "How Small Business Drives U.S. Economy," ThoughtCo, https://www.thoughtco.com/how-small-business-drives-economy-3321945

What really drives the U.S. economy? No, it is not war. In fact, it is small business -- firms with fewer than 500 employees -- that drives the U.S. economy by providing jobs for over half of the nation's private workforce.In 2010, there were 27.9 million small businesses in the United States, compared to 18,500 larger firms with 500 employees or more, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. These and other statistics outlining small business' contribution to the economy are contained in the Small Business Profiles for the States and Territories, 2005 Edition from the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA Office of Advocacy, the "small business watchdog" of the government, examines the role and status of small business in the economy and independently represents the views of small business to federal government agencies, Congress, and the President of the United States. It is the source for small business statistics presented in user-friendly formats and it funds research into small business issues. "Small business drives the American economy," said Dr. Chad Moutray, Chief Economist for the Office of Advocacy in a press release. "Main Street provides the jobs and spurs our economic growth. American entrepreneurs are creative and productive, and these numbers prove it." Small Businesses Are Job Creators SBA Office of Advocacy-funded data and research shows that small businesses create more than half of the new private non-farm gross domestic product, and they create 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs. Census Bureau data shows that in 2010, American small businesses accounted for: 99.7% of U.S. employer firms; 64% of net new private-sector jobs; 49.2% of private-sector employment; and 42.9% of private-sector payroll Leading the Way Out of the Recession Small businesses accounted for 64% of the net new jobs created between 1993 and 2011 (or 11.8 million of the 18.5 million net new jobs). During the recovery from the great recession, from mid-2009 to 2011, small firms -- led by the larger ones with 20-499 employees -- accounted for 67% of the net new jobs created nationwide. Do the Unemployed Become Self-Employed? During periods of high unemployment, like the U.S. suffered during the great recession, starting a small business can be just as hard, if not harder than finding a job. However, in March 2011, about 5.5% -- or nearly 1 million self-employed people – had been unemployed the previous year. This figure was up from March 2006 and March 2001, when it was 3.6% and 3.1%, respectively, according to the SBA. Small Businesses Are the Real Innovators Innovation – new ideas and product improvements – is generally measured by the number of patents issued to a firm. Among firms considered “high patenting” firms – those being granted 15 or more patents in a four-year period -- small businesses produce 16 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms, according to the SBA. In addition, SBA research also shows that increasing the number of employees correlates with increased innovation while increasing sales does not.

The Impact of Tech Startups on the Global Economy The rapid proliferation of tech startups has had a profound impact on the global economy, reshaping traditional industries and driving job creation and economic growth. Tech startups have emerged as significant drivers of job creation, employing millions of individuals worldwide. These startups, often in high-value sectors such as software development, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology, offer diverse employment opportunities and attract top talent. As startups expand and scale their operations, they create a multiplier effect that generates economic growth, enhances productivity, and fuels innovation-led prosperity. Furthermore, the economic impact of tech startups extends beyond direct employment. Startup ecosystems stimulate entrepreneurship, leading to the creation of supporting services and ancillary industries. The growth of startups fosters innovation clusters, attracting talent, investment, and collaboration, thus amplifying the overall economic impact on the region. In addition to job creation and economic growth, tech startups have a reputation for disrupting established industries. By introducing pioneering technologies and novel business models, startups challenge incumbents and force industry-wide reevaluation. This disruption often leads to increased efficiency, enhanced customer experiences, and more equitable market competition. For instance, the transportation sector has been revolutionized by ride-sharing platforms. These platforms have not only provided convenient and affordable transportation options for consumers but also created new income opportunities for individuals who can now become drivers. Similarly, home-sharing platforms have disrupted the accommodation sector, allowing homeowners to monetize their properties and providing travelers with alternative lodging options. Moreover, fintech startups have transformed the way we handle financial transactions. Through innovative digital platforms, these startups have revolutionized banking, payments, and lending practices. Consumers can now easily access financial services, make secure transactions, and even obtain loans without the need for traditional brick-and-mortar banks. This fintech disruption has increased financial inclusion and empowered individuals and businesses to have greater control over their finances. The disruptive nature of tech startups not only benefits consumers but also stimulates innovation across industries. By challenging established norms and pushing boundaries, startups inspire existing companies to adapt and evolve. This drive for innovation fosters a culture of continuous improvement and propels industries forward. In conclusion, the impact of tech startups on the global economy is far-reaching. They drive job creation, fuel economic growth, and disrupt traditional industries, leading to increased efficiency and enhanced consumer experiences. The ongoing proliferation of tech startups promises to shape the future of the global economy, ushering in new possibilities and opportunities for individuals and businesses alike.

Some sectors of the U.S. economy have been hit far worse than others as the coronavirus pandemic has upturned personal consumption habits and government has ordered a halt to normal economic activity. But the greatest suffering has been in sectors with low productivity and low wages, such as hospitality, leisure, personal services, and bricks-and-mortar retail. The left has tried to fit this fact into pre-existing narratives by pointing out that workers in these sectors are disproportionately nonwhite and female. The anti-government right, for its part, has explained the disparity as the result of an attack by tyrannical federal, state and local governments on independent small business owners.

But these conventional partisan framings should not blind us to an obvious fact: The sectors that have suffered the most are laggard sectors—laggard, that is, in moving from old-fashioned, labor-intensive and low-wage business models to innovative, capital-intensive, technology- and skilled-based ways of delivering goods and services. Upgrading these backward industries into high-wage, technology-intensive sectors must be a priority for bipartisan public policy in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the U.S. economy enters its 28th consecutive quarter of expansion (4th longest since the great depression), there is ongoing debate as to whether labor markets, and for that matter, the broader economy is nearing the end of the expansion cycle. While there is evidence that expansions do not die of old age, there are signs that the labor market recovery is nearing retirement, similar to a growing share of the labor force. 1 For example, a recent report from the BLS suggested that job growth was the lowest in six and half years. Moreover, the auspicious signs of strong flows back into the labor force reversed course dramatically. While these measures can be volatile, there are many signs that cyclical recovery is nearing its peak at a moment when conditions remain below the economy’s pre-crisis potential.¶ That being said, a broad view of the labor market suggests that conditions could not be better. The economy has added an average of 226K jobs per month since 2014, and the unemployment rate now stands at 4.7%—the lowest rate in nine years. In addition, the number of people choosing to re-enter the labor force and begin work was at an all-time high in April, pushing up the labor force participation rate, a trend that had coincided with wage gains and tighter labor market conditions. ¶ To assess if there is remaining slack in the labor market or if the remaining headwinds are structural in nature, we exploit the empirical relationship between the unemployment rate and jobs vacancies, known as the Beveridge Curve (BC), and a time-series derivation of the gap in the BC referred to as the “curve shifter.” Theory suggests that higher levels of unemployment (larger pool of job seekers) is associated with a lower number of vacancies given that a higher supply of job seekers and greater demand for employees will increase the likelihood of employers finding a match for their vacant positions. As a result, traditional business cycles produce movements along the curve. However, during the recession and recovery, there has been a persistent outward shift in the curve, which is unlikely to be explained by normal cyclical forces.¶ To put this into perspective relative to the pre-crisis, for any given job vacancy rate, there was a 2pp higher unemployment rate (UR). For sectors most acutely impacted by the crisis, such as construction and transportation and utility, the gaps were 5.1pp and 2.3pp larger, respectively. Although there have been some indications of improvements, based on a derivation of this gap or shift in the BC, there appear to be remaining frictions.¶ Using this reduced form representation of the curve shifter, we confirm previously established relationships between productivity (Lubik 2012), uncertainty (Liu & Leduc 2015), and secular shifts in labor force activity a la Bova et al (2016). However, we find that access to credit, in addition to significant fiscal policy tightening, are the key elements in the breakdown of labor market matching. Moreover, we find heterogeneous impacts across firm size and age, and industries. In fact, the reduced form representation of the factors that can “shift the curve” a la Pissarides (2000) and Liu & Leduc (2015) shows that despite a handful of cyclical indicators suggesting vast improvements in the labor market, there remain significant structural forces at play.¶ Usual suspects explain remaining gap in labor market¶ After controlling for changes in unemployment benefits (extension of unemployment insurance claims) due to the financial crisis, we found that there were three key factors that explain the significant and persistent outward shift in the BC: labor force outflows of those 55 and older, cyclical fiscal policy tightening and credit availability. In fact, over a four year cycle, increased willingness of banks to lend in the commercial and industrial (C&I) and commercial real estate loans (CRE) spaces explains 35% of the shift, while cyclical fiscal policy shocks explain 31% of the movement, productivity explains 15%, and retiree outflows from the labor force explain an additional 13%. Unlike Liu & Leduc (2015), we find that policy uncertainty explains only a small portion of the shift (3.0%). On a short time horizon (four quarters), however, productivity plays a more important role in matching, explaining nearly 50% of the shift, with labor force outflows explaining an additional 17%.¶ These results imply that factors that are cyclical by nature can have lasting effects on broader labor market activity. A process sometimes referred to as hysteresis. For example, fiscal policy shocks and credit availability tend to ebb and flow with the business cycles, leading to predictable movements along the BC. However, without offsetting shocks to other determining factors, e.g. lower uncertainty or higher productivity, the impact can persist for years, and in some cases never fully recover. In addition, to the extent that credit and fiscal policy have experienced a permanent shift, and the fact that monetary policy is becoming a less effective tool, it will be hard to envisage any significant reduction in the gap in the medium-term. ¶ In addition, we tested the impact hiring rates have on BC across firm age, size and industry. In the short run, large and incumbent firms have the largest impact on the BC. However, after six quarters, the impact that startups and small firms have on the BC is more significant and persistent. In fact, at 16 quarters, the impact that startup hiring has on BC compared to old firms is 10 times greater; for small firms, in a similar vein, the impact is 250% greater at 16 quarters versus four quarters from the initial shock. With this in mind, creating an environment that encourages small business formation and risk taking could counteract headwinds plaguing the labor market. ¶ Firms at all levels are susceptible to credit cycles and cash flow volatility. However, these factors are amplified for new entrants or small firms, imparting a larger influence on the broader labor market, particularly in keystone sectors such as retail, real estate and construction. In other words, hiring slowdowns in these sectors have the largest and most persistent effect on the BC shifter. For instance, a one standard deviation drop in the hiring rates in these sectors would shift the BC outwards by approximately 10%. To put this into perspective, in the aftermath of the crisis, the BC shifter increased by 30% from peak-trough. Moreover, unlike other industries that are more apt at weathering cycles and have greater access to credit such as manufacturing, these industries are generally slow to respond and as a result, accumulate losses over a longer time period, and in some cases, never recover.¶ This finding has substantial implication for the health of the broader economy given the fact that small and new firms are the dominant force in net job creation in the U.S.; whereas, larger (500+ employees) and older (11+ years) firms are historically net job destroyers. Moreover, startups and small businesses hire at a rate between 1 to 2.5 times higher than older and larger firms. Labor-intensive service sectors such as retail also have persistently higher levels of hiring, in some cases 50-75bp higher than other sectors. More specifically, startup hiring rates in industries such as finance and insurance, manufacturing and information are 380%, 330% and 270% higher, respectively, than their industry peers. Small and young firms in arts and entertainment, agriculture and accommodation hire at rates 200%-400% higher than the national average. Research has also shown that only 3% of businesses can be classified as “high growth businesses,” but they are responsible for a disproportionate share of growth. Moreover, small businesses are essential parts of U.S. supply chains given that can lower logistical costs, are nimble problem solvers and are better equipped to partner on joint innovations. ¶ There is additional upside to targeting small businesses and startups given that as outflows from the labor market intensify, there could be adverse effects for aggregate productivity as new entrants take time to develop skills. As a result, focusing on new business hires could help to accelerate the demographic transition.

There is an argument that trademark doctrine and policy itself provides every incentive for trademark owners to vigorously enforce their marks for fear of losing the mark to genericide, to ensure the mark remains strong, to prevent dilution, and to preserve future lines of trade under the mark, among other reasons;63 however, this does not necessarily mean that the trademark owner is a troll. Those are legitimate reasons and may set up an “enforce it” or “lose it” reasoning process justifying vigorous enforcement of a mark. Indeed, some trademarks have reached valuations in the billions of dollars.64 Moreover, mark holders control the scope of protection of their mark through licensing.65 Again, trademark doctrine and policy encourage this behavior.

Trademark law also functions to protect trademark producers. The law protects the trademark owners’ rightful use from appropriation by others. The law bans pirating use by others who may create and sell products or market services of sub-standard quality. Protection promotes and rewards investment by preserving the value of marks by prohibiting others from using the mark. By prohibiting others from free-loading off of the good-will a mark has established producers and owners are rewarded for investing time, effort, and money in producing and developing new brands with corresponding new products. Thus, producers and owners are rewarded for creation and use by receiving the protection the law affords them in exchange. Trademark owners are also rewarded with continued patronage and brand loyalty, when they have made efficient use of their marks. As noted above, trademarks reduce consumer search costs, thereby increasing the ability and perhaps frequency of repeat purchasers. The use in commerce requirement is a necessary tradeoff for these benefits to accrue to the mark owner. In theory, if they do not use the marks in commerce they will not benefit financially from the trademark registration. Thus, it is always in their best interest to market and promote their mark as much as possible and to create quality goods associated with the mark in order to increase sales and brand loyalty.

The TTAB’s issuance of Registration No. 67,631,18 demonstrates a lack of appetite to tackle bullying behavior and a continued departure from fundamental trademark principles. OSU makes it clear in the filing documents that it intends to behave similarly to Louis Vuitton and other historic bullies in attempting to squash small businesses, monopolize the marketplace, and chill free speech.144 With the armor provided by its registration, OSU can actively pursue claims against parody or other fair use cases. The University regularly demonstrates commitment to aggressively and fiercely protect its brand.145This attitude cannot afford grace to parodic and critical perspectives. For example, “THE” is currently being used in the market by Smack Apparel, a sports merchandise brand, to comment on and parody OSU’s pretentious use of “THE”.146

The Seventh Circuit not only approved of the district court’s invocation of its Section 1119 powers in cancelling the plaintiffs mark but also characterized the action as “not merely appropriate” but “the best course.”175 Accordingly, more courts should invoke their power to cancel in trademark litigation where it is obvious that the plaintiff’s trademark rights are invalid. This approach is supported not only by the statutory mandate of commercial use and Section 1119’s explicit grant of the power to cancel to the court, but also many important policy considerations. In Central Manufacturing the court itself noted two policies justifying this approach in its opinion. First, the court characterized the invocation of Section 1119 as putting “the public on notice of its trademark-related judgments.”176 Second, the court stated that Section 1119 “arms the court with the power to update the federal trademark register to account for a mark’s actual legal status (or lack thereof) after it has been adjudicated, thereby reducing the potential for future uncertainty over the rights in a particular mark.”177 Below, these policy implications are assessed. Finally, the Seventh Circuit’s unique characterization of its standard of review for attorney’s fees in Lanham cases warrants separate attention.178

The power to cancel a trademark is not limited to the USPTO. As Judge Easterbrook has noted, “trademark law does not reserve the cancellation power to the PTO. A court may cancel a mark itself or order the agency to do so.”88 The power to order the cancellation of a mark is governed by 15 U.S.C. § 1119.89 That section provides: “In any action involving a registered mark the court may determine the right to registration, order the cancellation of registrations, in whole or in part, restore cancelled registrations, and otherwise rectify the register with respect to the registrations of any party to the action.”90 The “net effect” of 15 U.S.C § 1119 is to give the courts “concurrent power” with the USPTO to conduct cancellation proceedings.91 The Supreme Court has noted that § 1119 grants the court “broad power” to order the cancellation of a registered mark."92

There is the possibility of abuse of a cancellation or opposition proceeding.203 For example, a supposed trademark troll could use cancellation or opposition proceedings to interfere with a bona fide trademark owner’s ability to obtain a federal registration because of the generous standing requirement. The danger of this occurring is mitigated for at least two reasons. First, the use requirement still exists. For example, analogous use can be used to predate another party’s actual use date, but that analogous use must be perfected. Thus, the opposer, or canceler, must have used the trademark, and therefore would arguably not fit the definition of a troll. Second, trademark law allows the party against whom the opposition or cancellation is filed to raise a counterclaim essentially attacking the other party’s prior registration, if it has been raised.204 This puts the purported trademark owner’s mark at issue.

It is axiomatic that the commercial use of a trademark and not its registration confers enforceable rights in that mark. As basic as it may seem to those well-versed in the field of trademark law, it is apparent that some still misunderstand the U.S.’s use-based system of registration. In Central Manufacturing, the plaintiff was certainly confused. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit got it right. The district courts should not wait for a defendant to plead cancellation as an affirmative defense to trademark infringement where it is clear that the plaintiff’s registration is invalid. Rather, district courts should adopt the “cancellation-as-best-course” approach enunciated by the Seventh Circuit in Central Manufacturing, and invoke the power to cancel sua sponte when given the opportunity by a plaintiff filing suit without valid rights to the registered mark in question. A more liberal invocation of the courts’ power to cancel promotes each of the three policy components that form the very foundation of trademark law: protecting producers, protecting consumers from confusion, and fostering fair competition. In addition, the cancellation-as-best-course route provides greater certainty regarding the status of trademark rights by putting the public on notice of the district court’s trademark related judgments and refreshing the federal register. It will also reduce the production of trademark thickets thereby releasing marks into the public domain for other producers to make meaningful use. Further, a combination of the threat of cancellation and the award of attorney’s fees creates a powerful situation which may deter trademark trolls from either filing, or threatening to file, meritless trademark infringement suits. Although Stoller was the extreme case due to the nature of his extensive litigation history, Central Manufacturing stands for the proposition that if a party chooses to bring a trademark infringement suit, they better be sure to have credible evidence establishing commercial use. Otherwise, they may not only risk losing their registration, but may be forced to pay the costs of litigation.

As hundreds of Gleissner’s trademark applications proceeded to examination, a number of small business owners reached out to WTR to criticise one particular IP agency: the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). In a stinging critique, the head of a small IT company questioned why the UKIPO was not providing sufficient protection for existing rights holders, claiming that the duty to oppose or seek cancellation of marks was too financially burdensome for most SMEs. “We’re essentially in a position where we can either defend our trademark or throw thousands of pounds we cannot afford into a black hole of legal fees, or suffer the potential long-term consequences of a severely diluted trademark if we do not defend it,” he said.

The comments reflected growing concern among brand owners over Gleissner’s trademark activity. What is more, they pointed to fundamental issues within the IP system. Spiralling legal costs were preventing many small business owners from moving forward with opposition proceedings. “Although we’re feeling victimised at the moment and may have to concede defeat in this case, there is a fundamental problem in the trademark system which is allowing this to happen,” our source admitted.

This Comment proposes that other courts should follow the lead of the Seventh Circuit and that the cancellation-as-best-course rule should become the norm rather than the exception.20 A more liberal invocation of the court’s discretionary power of cancellation promotes trademark law’s three policy components: protection of producers, protection of consumers from confusion, and the encouragement of fair competition. Second, this policy assuages the costs associated with needless trademark litigation. Third, it places the public on notice of cancellations as ordered by the courts and provides increased certainty regarding trademark rights to the public. Finally, this policy also operates as a judicial “refreshing” mechanism for clearance of the unused trademark from the trademark register. The combination of mark cancellation and the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party creates a powerful situation which may deter trademark trolls, such as Stoller, from filing or threatening to file meritless suit against innocent parties for use of a mark he lacks valid ownerships rights

Fourth, trademark law may benefit from the applicability of law developed to address patent trolls.13 For example, the U.S. Supreme Court’s eBay v. MercExchange decision concerning patent injunctions has been applied to trademark injunctions, thus removing a presumption of irreparable harm where a likelihood of success on the merits is demonstrated.14 The U.S. Supreme Court’s Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness decision concerning attorney fees in patent cases has also been applied in trademark cases.15 Fifth, the litigation and other strategic advantages present in so-called patent trolling cases may not be available in trademark cases.16 Sixth, state attorney general enforcement of state consumer protection laws against patent trolls may deter a trademark troll problem from developing.17 Notably, at least one state has already considered legislation specifically targeted at trademark trolls.18 Moreover, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) enforcement of federal consumer protection laws against patent trolls may similarly deter trademark trolls.19 Seventh, one commentator has argued that the patent troll problem developed, in part, because of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (Federal Circuit) nationwide exclusive appellate jurisdiction over patent cases.20 Trademark law is less susceptible to a troll problem developing because the various federal circuit courts of appeals, as well as state courts, have jurisdiction to hear trademark appeals.21 Finally, an early U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision addressing trademark trolling upheld an award of attorney fees against a troll and canceled the troll’s mark for lack of use.22 This case has perhaps provided a disincentive to trademark trolling.23

Where mark cancellation and an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the defendant are combined, it provides powerful incentives to only bring suit where a party has confidence in the right to use that mark. The Seventh Circuit also has a highly unique way of characterizing the standard under which it reviews a district court’s award of attorney fees. In reviewing the award in Central Manufacturing, the court stated, “[w]e will not reverse a determination for clear error unless it strikes us as wrong with the force of a 5-weekold, unrefrigerated, dead fish.”187 In applying this “olfactory standard” the court found that the only thing that stunk was the defendant’s actions in filing suit.188 Aside from this notable characterization of the standard of review for attorney’s fees, the Seventh Circuit’s review of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act has had a colorful progression.189 While an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party is the exception and not the rule, the Seventh Circuit has broadened the scope of “exceptional” cases to include not just pre-litigation, but also litigation, conduct.1

Known for his role as an intellectual property “entrepreneur”1 , Mr. Leo Stoller is the prototypical trademark troll.2 Stoller has made it his business to sue as many parties as possible for the use of “his” STEALTH trademark.3 One court recently described Stoller as “running an industry that produces often spurious, vexatious, and harassing federal litigation.”4 The problem with Mr. Stoller is that the intellectual property community and the courts doubt whether Stoller actually uses the STEALTH mark on actual goods sold in commerce.5 Rather, he merely exploits his trademark registrations to negotiate and extract licensing fees from companies using the mark on their own products.6 Some of those third parties, when threatened with litigation, have entered into licensing or settlement agreements for use of the STEALTH mark. These agreements cover a startling collection of products, ranging from “hand tools to make prosthetic limbs to construction consulting services to track lighting.”7 It was reported that Stoller even accused Sony Pictures of infringing the STEALTH mark by including the word as the title of a film featuring Navy pilots.8 Although Stoller purports to have been hired to serve as a trademark expert at various trademark trials throughout the country,9 his situation exemplifies a common misunderstanding that exists among the public, legal practitioners, and even district courts. The mere federal registration of a mark does not give the trademark owner a monopoly over that mark; as the Seventh Circuit has noted, “bare registration is not enough.”10 Under the Lanham Trademark Act, a trademark owner must use the mark in commerce to acquire and maintain ownership rights in that mark.11 This requirement operates to prevent the “banking” or “warehousing” of marks.12 Warehousing is a term used to describe the practice of a party that registers trademarks and effectively collects and stores them as opposed to actually using them. This type of activity is barred both under the Lanham Act and at common law. One cannot register a trademark, cease using the mark on ones’ products and/or services, and then attempt to extract a licensing fee from sellers of products or services well-suited to adopt that trademark.13 This type of operation was, and continues to be, Stoller’s modus operandi.14 Stoller or one of his corporate entities have been involved in at least 49 cases in the Northern District of Illinois alone and at least 47 of them purport to involve trademark infringement.15 Tellingly, no court has ever found infringement of any trademark allegedly held by Stoller or his related companies in any reported opinion.16 Although one would think that these staggering statistics alone would deter Stoller, this apparently has not been the case. In fact, Stoller’s cases have generally “proven so frivolous and wasteful of court resources” that in his most recent action, the Northern District of Illinois enjoined him from filing any new civil action in the district courts without first obtaining the court’s permission.17 In Central Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brett, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a decision of the Northern District of Illinois in which the court utilized two important weapons to counter Stoller’s most recent meritless trademark infringement suit: the power to order the cancellation of a trademark registration and the power to award attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.18 Not only did the Seventh Circuit approve of the district courts decision to cancel the plaintiff’s mark, the court stated that “where . . . a registrant’s asserted rights to a mark are shown to be invalid, cancellation is not merely appropriate, it is the best course.”19 If the approach taken by the Seventh Circuit is implemented more often by district courts throughout the country, trademark trolls such as Stoller may think twice about bringing suit for infringement of a mark in which no protectable rights exist.