News & Analysis as of

Trademark Litigation Vacated Appeals

BakerHostetler

Federal Circuit Reverses TTAB Decision Based on Dissimilar House Marks

BakerHostetler on

On June 13, the Federal Circuit reversed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board) nonprecedential decision finding no likelihood of confusion between opposer Château Lynch-Bages’ and applicant Château Angélus...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

When Analyzing Likelihood of Confusion, It’s Not Just Location, Location, Location

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

Fox Rothschild LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Successful Trademark Plaintiffs Cannot Recover Profits From Named Defendants’...

Fox Rothschild LLP on

On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated a nearly $43 million award in a trademark dispute that raised the question of whether a defendant’s affiliates could be held liable for payment of a disgorged...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Supreme Court Overturns Nearly $43 Million Trademark Infringement Award Based on Section 35 of the Lanham Act

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in the Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. case was released Wednesday. In a unanimous opinion, the Court found that Section 35 of the Lanham Act, which provides that a plaintiff...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Time’s Up: Fifth Circuit Reinstates Original Judgment in Trademark Dispute

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a district court’s amended final judgment and reinstated its prior final judgment, finding that the district court overstepped its narrow mandate on remand, directly...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Unbranded Brandy: COGNAC Certification Mark Matters, Even in Hip-Hop

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a ruling from the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, disagreeing with the Board’s dismissal of Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac’s opposition to a trademark...more

Erise IP

What’s Trending in Trademarks, March 2024: Chanel Reseller Found Liable for Trademark Infringement, False Advertising; Federal...

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: Chanel...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Trademark Trial & Appeal Board Gets a DuPont 101 Lesson

Addressing errors in the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s likelihood of confusion analysis in a cancellation action, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the Board erred by...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

New York Court Sides with PepsiCo on Remand in Ongoing Rise Brewing Dispute

Ladas & Parry LLP on

In Riseandshine Corporation v PepsiCo Inc (SDNY-1-21-cv-06324), plaintiff Riseandshine Corporation, doing business as Rise Brewing, brought three federal and two state claims relating to trademark infringement and unfair...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Burst That Bubble: Specific Knowledge Necessary to Prove Contributory Trademark Infringement

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

McDermott Will & Schulte

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

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 & Schulte

#Blessed? Preliminary Injunction Related to Social Media Accounts Vacated

Addressing a dispute between a bridal designer and her former employer regarding the use of the designer’s name and control of various social media accounts, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the...more

International Lawyers Network

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Willfulness Is Not Required to Recover Profits

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

Sunstein LLP

Trademark Infringement Remedies Just Got Snappier? United States Supreme Court Says Proving Willfulness Is Not Required For...

Sunstein LLP on

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

Greenberg Glusker LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Holds that Willfulness is Not a Prerequisite for an Award Disgorging Trademark Infringer’s Profits

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - May 14, 2020

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., No. 18-1086: Petitioner Lucky Brand Dungarees and respondent Marcel Fashions Group have been engaged in three separate rounds of trademark-related litigation over a...more

Lowenstein Sandler LLP

Romag Fasteners: SCOTUS Holds That Plaintiffs in Trademark Suits Need Not Show "Willful Intent" of Infringement to Recover Damages...

Lowenstein Sandler LLP on

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

WilmerHale

Supreme Court Holds that Willfulness is Not a Requirement to an Award of an Infringer’s Profits

WilmerHale on

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

Miles & Stockbridge P.C.

Willfulness no Longer Required for Trademark Owners to be Awarded an Infringer’s Profits

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

Baker Donelson

Supreme Court Clears an Obstacle to Profit Awards for Trademark Owners, But Doesn't Completely Flush "Willfulness"

Baker Donelson on

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 LLP

Supreme Court clarifies rules for remedies in trademark litigation

White & Case LLP on

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

MarkIt to Market® - April 2020: Two Takeaways from Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.

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

Smith Anderson

Supreme Court Holds Willfulness Not Required for Recovery of Trademark Infringer’s Profits

Smith Anderson on

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

Latham & Watkins LLP

Supreme Court: Willfulness Not Required for Profits Awards in Trademark Infringement Actions

Latham & Watkins LLP on

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

K&L Gates LLP

Supreme Court Raises the Stakes Against Unauthorized Resellers: Willfulness No Longer Required for Manufacturers to Obtain Profits...

K&L Gates LLP on

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

80 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4

"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