News & Analysis as of

Appeals Trademarks Remand

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

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

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Rum Wars: Lanham Act Doesn’t Preclude Judicial Review of PTO Renewal Decisions

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Trademark Trial & Appeal Board Gets a DuPont 101 Lesson

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Word From on High: Provide Reasoned Explanation When Departing From Established Practice

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a decision on motion in an appeal from the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit admonished the Board on remand to “furnish a reasoned explanation” when departing from its...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 & Emery

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 & Emery

If at First You DuPont Succeed, Try a Different Factor

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that the Board incorrectly analyzed several DuPont factors, improperly disregarded the DuPont factor regarding...more

McDermott Will & Emery

False Advertising: Verifiably False Versus Subjective Opinion

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

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

Message Received: US Courts Are Appropriate, More Convenient Venue to Adjudicate US IP Disputes

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens in a software licensing dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a Dutch entity and the...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

Counterfeit Dealer Gets Smoked in Trademark Preliminary Injunction Proceeding

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction barring the defendant from selling counterfeit e-cigarette and vaping products bearing the plaintiff’s logo because the plaintiff’s psychoactive...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

First Sale Defense Bars Trademark Infringement Where Trademarked Component Is Adequately Disclosed

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

#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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - September 2021

Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1799 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2021) - In an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Waiver in PTO Trademark Appeals Applies “Per Decision, Not Per Case”

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Agreement to One Is Not Consent to All

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

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

Burns & Levinson LLP

Supreme Court Helps Trademark Owners: Proof of “Willfulness” Is Not Required To Recover Infringer’s Profits

Burns & Levinson LLP on

In April 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that trademark infringers can be required to hand over their profits to a brand owner even if their conduct was not “willful.” The case was Romag Fasteners v. Fossil Group, Inc.,...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

107 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5

"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