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 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
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
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
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
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
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
On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., holding a plaintiff is no longer required to prove a defendant acted with willful infringement in order to seek a...more
In a recent precedential opinion, Kars 4 Kids Inc. v. America Can!, __ F.4th __ (3d Cir. 2021) (publication pending), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a $10.6 million trademark infringement...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 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
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
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
On May 14, 2020, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the US Supreme Court overturned the “defense preclusion” doctrine proposed by the Second Circuit, upholding the requirement that preclusion of a defense...more
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
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
In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a district court may award the plaintiff with the defendant’s profits even without a showing of willfulness for trademark infringement. However, the...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