News & Analysis as of

Appeals Likelihood of Confusion Reversal

McDermott Will & Emery

Kissing cousins? SUNKIST and KIST deemed confusingly similar

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision, concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks KIST and SUNKIST when used in connection with soft...more

Erise IP

What’s Trending in Trademarks, August 2024: What Constitutes an Abandoned Mark? How Famous is Cognac?

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s trademark attorneys review the latest developments at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and across the corporate world to bring you the stories that you should know about: Fourth...more

McDermott Will & Emery

On the Road Again: Alternative Designs May Impact Trade Dress Functionality Analysis

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded a summary judgment ruling, finding that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s alleged trade dress was functional and...more

McDermott Will & Emery

I Know That Brand . . . Or Do I? Reviewing the Eleventh Circuit’s Likelihood of Confusion Analysis

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s summary judgment ruling finding no likelihood that consumers might be confused as to any relationship between competitors operating in...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Don’t Dew It: Second Circuit Cans Likelihood of Confusion Argument

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and vacated a district court’s preliminary injunction grant because the district court erred in assessing the strength of a trademark. RiseandShine Corporation v....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Delay in Enforcing Trademark Measured from When Infringement Became Actionable

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing laches and progressive encroachment, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment based on laches because the district court failed to “conduct a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Second User Vaping Company Has No Claim to “Affliction”

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a company selling vaping accessories under the mark AFFLICTION, holding that the district court had erred in holding as a matter of...more

International Lawyers Network

Federal Circuit Reminds Us That Extrinsic Considerations Are Narrowly Construed in Trademark Matters

2018 saw a number of important trademark cases decided across the United States. Two cases illustrated the similarities between genericness analysis and one of the likelihood of confusion factors considered by the Trademark...more

Knobbe Martens

VersaTop Support Systems v. Georgia Expo, Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Before Newman, Linn, and Dyk. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Summary: The Trademark Act’s definition of “use in commerce” as a requirement for obtaining a federal trademark does...more

Smart & Biggar

Year-end Round-up: Notable Trademark Case Law From 2018

Smart & Biggar on

There were many interesting trademark cases coming out of 2018, a few of which are discussed below. The scope of Canada’s anti-dilution remedy (section 22 of the Trademarks Act) is not limited to a defendant’s use of a...more

Smart & Biggar

Streamlined Canadian trademark litigation — Court of Appeal opens door to full compensation

Smart & Biggar on

A recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal sheds light on a streamlined litigation procedure that brand owners may find attractive. In Group III International Ltd v Travelway Group International Ltd, 2017 FCA 215...more

Knobbe Martens

More Than Zero: Under the Lanham Act, One Interstate Sale Qualifies as Actual Use of a Trademark in Commerce

Knobbe Martens on

In 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected shoe manufacturer Adidas’s application to trademark the phrase “ADIZERO,” due to a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark: “ADD A ZERO,” a clothing trademark held...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Certification Mark May Be Infringed Despite Nominative Fair Use, Lack of Source Confusion

Addressing the use of a certification mark in connection with information systems training, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded a district court grant of summary judgment for the defendants on...more

Morgan Lewis

Second Circuit Highlights Splits on Nominative Trademark Fair Use

Morgan Lewis on

The Second Circuit disagrees with sister circuits and rejects arguments that nominative fair use is an affirmative defense that is available even when confusion is likely and that the traditional nominative fair use analysis...more

Knobbe Martens

Trademark Review | September 2015

Knobbe Martens on

The TTAB Finds Confusion Between WINEBUD Wine and BUD Beer The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) found that Applicant’s mark WINEBUD for wine is confusingly similar to Anheuser-Busch’s (“AB”) BUD mark. The TTAB...more

Knobbe Martens

Trademark Review | August 2015

Knobbe Martens on

The Redskins Lose Again (Off the Field)- A federal District Court affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) ruling that “Redskins” cannot be registered as a trademark for use in connection with a...more

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide