The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that a district court does not need to accept both parties’ stipulation that a mark is distinctive but instead is permitted to make an evidentiary inquiry in determining...more
1/30/2025
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Generic Marks ,
Inherently Distinctive ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Ownership ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks
In a case originally based on a false advertising claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the district court’s dismissal of the...more
In a precedential decision, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) denied a petition to cancel a trademark registration based on priority. The Board explained that the petitioner bears a higher burden of proof to show...more
In a precedential decision, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) granted two opposers’ motions for partial judgment on their claim of false suggestion of a connection under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act based on a...more
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part a district court ruling dismissing claims under the Lanham Act and Massachusetts consumer protection law based on statements on a website...more
In a rare precedential opinion, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB, Board) ruled that the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not apply in Board proceedings. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v....more
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the use of nearly identical marks by a military order, a related foundation and a funding organization was likely to cause...more