Recently, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “TTAB”) held that an unsuccessful opposer was precluded from later pursuing a cancellation against the same trademark owner, even though the opposer assumed a different...more
8/12/2015
/ B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries ,
Claim Preclusion ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Digital Downloads ,
Digital Media ,
Music Industry ,
Podcasts ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Act ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
Webcasts ,
Webinars ,
Young Lawyers
This case arose from GS Enterprises, LLC’s (“GS”) opposition to the registration of Juice Generation, Inc.’s (“Juice Generation”) trademark. In finding a likelihood of confusion with GS’s marks, the Board below reasoned that...more
The Ninth Circuit recently held that online retailer Amazon.com could be liable for infringing the trademarks of a watch manufacturer based upon Amazon’s product search results when shoppers search for the manufacturer’s...more
In Tartell v. South Florida Sinus and Allergy Center, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the plaintiff’s personal name had acquired distinctiveness as a trademark and that the defendant...more
In Sorensen v. WD-40 Company, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the use of the term “inhibitor” for a rust-inhibitor product was not trademark infringement and constituted a descriptive fair use. ...more
H.J. Heinz Co. (“Heinz”) filed a federal lawsuit recently against Boulder Brands USA (“Boulder”) seeking to vacate and reverse a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision finding that Boulder’s SMART BALANCE trademark is not...more
The Fourth Circuit recently ruled that a Defendant’s online article entitled “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” did not violate the trademark rights of the NAACP, the National Association for the...more
The Second Circuit recently vacated a contempt order entered against the U.S. Polo Association for selling sunglasses with its logo depicting two mounted polo players vying for a ball. The Second Circuit found that the...more
On May 8, 2015, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a resounding blow to trademark applicants who seek to register others’ trademarks as parodies. In New York Yankees Partnership v. IET Products and...more
In Nola Spice Designs L.L.C. v. Haydel Enterprises, Inc., the Fifth Circuit recently cancelled a New Orleans bakery’s word and design trademarks for “Mardi Gras Bead Dog” – the bakery’s mascot based on the Mardi Gras...more
In Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, et al., No. 14-3117 (6th Cir. April 6, 2015), the Sixth Circuit confirmed that post-trial motions toll the deadline for filing motions for attorneys’ fees under Rule...more
The Northern District of Illinois recently held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), did not protect a karaoke bar from claims of trademark infringement...more
The Fourth Circuit recently ruled on several important issues regarding the scope of relief that may be granted for trademark infringement. The backdrop for the decision in Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Von Drehle...more
The Supreme Court issued its second trademark ruling of the term on Tuesday, ruling that federal court decisions on “likelihood of confusion” sometimes can be precluded by earlier rulings about trademark registrability issued...more
The Supreme Court issued its second trademark ruling of the term on Tuesday, ruling that federal court decisions on “likelihood of confusion” sometimes can be precluded by earlier rulings about trademark registrability issued...more
The Second Circuit ruled last week in favor of Plaintiff Marcel Fashion Group Inc. (“Marcel”), vacating the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. (“Lucky Brand”), which had...more
In Couture v. Playdom, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the use of a mark on a website to offer services is not use in commerce sufficient to support an actual-use service mark application. As a result, the Court affirmed...more
On February 28, 2015, the Southern District of New York denied a motion to exclude the testimony and survey of an expert witness regarding whether a trademark was descriptive or suggestive. In Rise-N-Shine, LLC v. Robin...more
On February 28, 2015, the Southern District of New York denied a motion to exclude the testimony and survey of an expert witness regarding whether a trademark was descriptive or suggestive. In Rise-N-Shine, LLC v. Robin...more
In Couture v. Playdom, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the use of a mark on a website to offer services is not use in commerce sufficient to support an actual-use service mark application. As a result, the Court affirmed...more
In trademark law, rights in a trademark are determined by the date of the mark’s first use in commerce, and the party who first uses the mark in commerce has priority over other users. Under the doctrine of "tacking," under...more
In Ferring B.V. v. Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC, the Eastern District of New York was called upon to determine the importance of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”)...more
It has been the practice of some brand owners to include more goods in a use-based trademark application or declaration than were actually being used. Under TTAB precedent such as Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1205,...more
On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eighth Circuit’s decision in the case B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis, Inc. (2013). B&B Hardware owns a registered mark for SEALTIGHT for self-sealing nuts and...more