Is My Guitar Pedal a Klone or a Counterfeit? — No Infringement Intended Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: Sinking the Rogers Test? What Pepperdine’s Lawsuit Could Mean for Hollywood
The Briefing: Sinking the Rogers Test? What Pepperdine’s Lawsuit Could Mean for Hollywood
(Podcast) The Briefing: Trademark Smoked: The Fall of General Cigar’s COHIBA Registration
The Briefing: Trademark Smoked: The Fall of General Cigar’s COHIBA Registration
(Podcast) The Briefing: Influencer Fail – ALO Yoga & Influencers Named in $150M Class Action Lawsuit for FTC Violations
(Podcast) The Briefing: Trademark Mayhem – Lady Gaga Gets Sued for Trademark Infringement
The Briefing: Trademark Mayhem – Lady Gaga Gets Sued for Trademark Infringement
The Briefing: Everyone Loves the HBO Series 'White Lotus,' Except Duke University
SCOTUS and federal court rulings on TTAB decisions on granting trademarks and trademark renewals; Netflix settling an anticipated defamation case with a disclaimer and donation
Tag, You’re Sued: Graffiti Artists Sue Over Use of Their Tags
(Podcast) The Briefing: Tag, You’re Sued: Graffiti Artists Sue Over Use of Their Tags
The IP of Everything Podcast - Episode 22 - The IP of Dog Toys
Roundup of 2023 Entertainment Law Cases: Analysis SAG/AFTRA and WGA contracts, No Parody of Iconic Sneaker, AI Copyright Highlights China vs US law; SCOTUS Bad Spaniel and Warhol/Prince.
The Briefing: Once Upon A Time – SCOTUS Rejects Trademark Infringement Claim Against Quentin Tarantino Film
(Podcast) The Briefing: Once Upon A Time – SCOTUS Rejects Trademark Infringement Claim Against Quentin Tarantino Film
(Podcast) The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
The Briefing: The Supreme Court Limits the Reach of The Lanham Act [PODCAST]
After a decade of litigation and a pivotal Supreme Court ruling from 2023, the legal battle between Jack Daniel’s and VIP Products has taken yet another turn, this time back in favor of Jack Daniel’s. On remand from the...more
Seven years ago today, Jack Daniel’s was no doubt riding high. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona gave Jack a big shot in the arm with a trademark infringement and dilution victory over Bad Spaniel’s...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a grant of summary judgment on a false advertising claim, concluding that a cause of action under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act can arise when a party...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s ruling, holding that the Lanham Act does not foreclose an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) action for judicial review of the US Patent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed contributory trademark infringement for the first time, finding that specific knowledge is required for liability to attach. Y.Y.G.M. SA, DBA Brandy Melville v....more
Thank you for reading the June 2023 issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to Market® newsletter. This month, we begin a three-part series that closely examines ways to lose trademark rights; share an article that examines the...more
The US Supreme Court ruled today in the closely watched Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. case, which considered whether a party could recover in US courts for trademark infringement that occurred outside...more
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
A US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel vacated a grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the first sale doctrine applies when a trademarked product is incorporated into a new product....more
Addressing a “narrow question of statutory interpretation,” the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a trademark case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that a...more
Addressing a myriad of issues involving unauthorized use of professional models’ photographs for gentlemen’s clubs’ promotional materials, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court erred in...more
The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on April 23, 2020, by unanimously holding in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., et al. that a brand owner is not required to prove that a trademark infringer acted...more
Summary - On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc. that “willfulness” is not required for trademark owners to recover lost profits from infringers under § 35(a) of the...more
In U.S. trademark litigation, the focus is typically on injunctive relief: The plaintiff wants the defendant to cease use of the infringing mark before the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed or the strength of the mark is...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment invalidating a service mark for lacking distinctiveness, finding that a reasonable jury could understand the mark to...more
On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Lanham Act does not require a showing of willful infringement to justify an award of defendant’s profits to the plaintiff. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v....more
In a recent unanimous decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court brought some welcome clarity to the question of whether willfulness is required in order to recover an infringer’s profits under...more
On April 23, the US Supreme Court resolved a six-six circuit split over whether a defendant must have willfully infringed a trademark for a plaintiff to obtain as a remedy the infringer’s profits. In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v....more
In a decision some believe may generate more trademark infringement litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a trademark owner does not have to prove a defendant acted willfully to receive a profits remedy in...more
On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), resolved a circuit court split by confirming that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement...more
White & Case Technology Newsflash - Willful infringement is no longer required for trademark owners to recover infringers' profits. In Romag Fasteners v. Fossil Group, the Supreme Court resolved a longstanding circuit...more
On April 23, 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered a unanimous opinion in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., clarifying that a Lanham Act provision does not require a plaintiff to prove that acts of infringement are...more
On April 21, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a long-unsettled issue in trademark law, holding that Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act enables a trademark owner to recover the profits earned by an infringer without proving...more
Decision clarifies prior conflicting authority and holds that willfulness is not a prerequisite to recovering an infringer’s profits. Key Points: ..A finding of willfulness is not a prerequisite to a disgorgement of...more
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., No. 18-1233,[1] in which it held that the plaintiff in a trademark infringement action need not prove that the defendant acted...more