Latest Posts › Lanham Act

Share:

The Supreme Court Limits the Extraterritorial Application of the Lanham Act

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., limited the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act. The majority opinion was written by Justice Alito and joined by Justices...more

SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Abitron v. Hetronic: Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act

On March 31, 2023, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., where at issue is whether the Tenth Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act extraterritorially to Abitron’s...more

Cert. Granted in Abitron to Clarify Boundaries for Extraterritorial Application of Lanham Act

In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., Oklahoma-based Hetronic, maker of radio remote controls for heavy-duty construction equipment, sued its former distributor Abitron (from Austria) for selling copycat...more

The Third Circuit Limits Preclusive Effect of the TTAB Rulings

On September 17, 2021, the Third Circuit held in Beasley v. Howard that trademark cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) do not have claim preclusive effect against trademark...more

Genericness is in the Eye of the Beholder, i.e., the Public: BOOKING.COM is a Protectable Trademark

On June 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”), in an 8-1 decision, affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s holding that “BOOKING.COM” is a protectable trademark, thereby rejecting a sweeping rule that a protectable trademark...more

The Parameters of Generic Marks: Booking.com before the Supreme Court

The Lanham Act (“Act”) makes it clear that generic terms cannot be registered as trademarks. But can an online business create a protectable trademark by adding a generic top-level domain (e.g., “.com”) to an otherwise...more

Willfulness Is Not Required for Awarding Profits in Trademark Cases

On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., FKA Fossil, Inc., et al., that under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff is not required to show that a defendant willfully...more

Will the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Your Ability to Secure an “Incontestable” Trademark?

Section 15 of the Lanham Act, subject to certain specified exceptions, provides that the right of an owner “to use [a] registered mark in commerce for the goods or services on or in connection with which such registered mark...more

Royal Palm Properties’ Trademark Gets Royal Treatment At The 11th Circuit

This trademark litigation arises out of a contentious real-estate rivalry in a very wealthy residential community called Royal Palm Yacht & Country Club in Boca Raton, Florida....more

Cert. Roundup: Romag’s Opening Brief: Imposing a Willfulness Requirement to Recapture Profits is Inconsistent with Statute,...

In June 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., et al., No. 18-1233. As set forth in our previous blog post, Romag Fasteners Inc. (“Romag”) seeks to have the Court...more

Will Lucky Get Lucky This Time Around?

On Friday, June 28, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether, in cases where a plaintiff asserts new claims, federal preclusion principles bar a defendant from raising defenses that were not actually litigated...more

Supreme Court Will Decide When Trademark Infringers May Be Ordered to Forfeit Profits

On Friday, June 28, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide the circumstances necessary to support an award of a trademark infringer’s profits under section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Romag Fasteners...more

13 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