News & Analysis as of

Trademarks › Use in Commerce › Appeals

A Trademark is a legally registered distinctive mark or sign which identifies goods, products or services that originate or are associated with a particular person or enterprise . A typical example of a trademark... more +
A Trademark is a legally registered distinctive mark or sign which identifies goods, products or services that originate or are associated with a particular person or enterprise . A typical example of a trademark would be a company's logo such as the Nike "Check" or McDonald's "Golden Arches."  less -
Erise IP

What’s Trending in Trademarks, October 2024: T.I., Tiny Win $71.5M Verdict for OMG Girlz, Second Circuit Holds Against 1-800...

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: Third...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Foreign Sales to Foreign Customers Are Not Actionable Under the Lanham Act

McDermott Will & Emery on

Issuing a revised opinion following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that none of the defendant’s purely foreign sales...more

Sullivan & Worcester

Supreme Court Rules U.S. Trademark Law Does Not Apply to Foreign Conduct

Sullivan & Worcester on

On June 29, 2023, in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act does not have an extraterritorial scope and applies only in cases where the alleged infringing “use...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Holds Lanham Act Attaches Only to Liability for Domestic Uses in Commerce

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the petitioner in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International Inc. However, the justices were divided 5-4 as to the precise reasoning and what facts...more

Smart & Biggar

Federal Court of Appeal does not disturb lower court’s finding of 'use' for hotel services

Smart & Biggar on

In a highly anticipated decision, the Federal Court of Appeal recently held that a trademark owner could demonstrate “use” of a trademark in Canada in association with “hotel services” in the absence of a brick-and-mortar...more

Knobbe Martens

VersaTop Support Systems v. Georgia Expo, Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Before Newman, Linn, and Dyk. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Summary: The Trademark Act’s definition of “use in commerce” as a requirement for obtaining a federal trademark does...more

Smart & Biggar

Year-end Round-up: Notable Trademark Case Law From 2018

Smart & Biggar on

There were many interesting trademark cases coming out of 2018, a few of which are discussed below. The scope of Canada’s anti-dilution remedy (section 22 of the Trademarks Act) is not limited to a defendant’s use of a...more

Smart & Biggar

You don’t need to build it for them to come: Federal Court affirms trademark “use” for services does not require bricks and mortar...

Smart & Biggar on

Non-Canadian hoteliers have reason for celebration following the release of the Federal Court of Canada’s anticipated decision in Hilton Worldwide Holding LLP v Miller Thomson LLP, 2018 FC 895 (Hilton Worldwide)....more

Smart & Biggar

No store, no problem: Federal Court’s broad interpretation of “use” an advantage for non-Canadian retail trademark owners

Smart & Biggar on

Non-Canadian retailers can breathe a sigh of relief thanks to the Federal Court of Canada’s decision in Dollar General Corporation v 2900319 Canada Inc, 2018 FC 778 (“Dollar General”). The decision reaffirms the Court’s...more

Knobbe Martens

More Than Zero: Under the Lanham Act, One Interstate Sale Qualifies as Actual Use of a Trademark in Commerce

Knobbe Martens on

In 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected shoe manufacturer Adidas’s application to trademark the phrase “ADIZERO,” due to a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark: “ADD A ZERO,” a clothing trademark held...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Litigation Alert: The Ninth Circuit Leaves Pirate Joe’s Saying “Shiver Me Timbers!”

Fenwick & West LLP on

Late last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined a court had jurisdiction to decide a trademark lawsuit filed by a U.S. grocery store against a Canadian reseller where the products at issue were only...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

REDSKINS affirmed as disparaging. Appealed to 4th Circuit.

Ladas & Parry LLP on

In its June 18, 2014 Blackhorse decision, the TTAB ordered six Redskins trademarks to be cancelled as disparaging to Native Americans at the time they were registered....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Offering of Services Alone Insufficient Basis for § 1(a) Trademark Application - David Couture v. Playdom, Inc.

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing for the first time whether the offering of a service was sufficient “use in commerce” under the Lanham Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB)...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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide