DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: A Discussion of Kisor v. Wilkie
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a district court’s decision finding no infringement that focused on only the geographic distance between the physical locations of the two users without considering the...more
The dispute at issue in Jack Daniel’s arises from a conflict between the well-known whiskey company and a dog toy company (VIP) regarding VIP’s unauthorized use of Jack Daniel’s trademarks and trade dress in connection with a...more
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., vacating a nearly $43 million profits award and remanding the case for further consideration. The Court concluded...more
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
Crocs, Inc. v. Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd., Appeal No. 2022-2160 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined whether a district court erred in dismissing false advertising claims...more
Before Reyna, Cunningham and Albright. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Summary: A claim that an unpatented product feature is “patented,” “proprietary,” or “exclusive” may violate...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
After the district court, on remand, held that laches did not bar relief, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit again determined that the district court abused its discretion by not properly applying the presumption...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
On March 17, 2021, in a matter of first impression, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held a party appealing a decision of the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) may seek review of...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
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