Pepsi earns reversal of pretrial order that would have required it to stop marketing a new Mountain Dew product. A federal district court was wrong to enjoin Pepsi from continuing to market a canned energy drink under the Mountain Dew line under the name of “rise energy” because the owner of the RISE mark was…

With Judgment of 6 April 2022, the Federal Supreme Court upheld FIFA’s claim that the marks “PUMA WORLD CUP QATAR 2022” and “PUMA WORLD CUP 2022” were misleading, ordered these marks to be removed from the register and referred the case back to the Zurich Commercial Court to decide on the question of injunctive relief…

First it was getting a registration as a trademark for the name of a State (see at http://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/03/28/mission-impossible-register-the-name-of-a-state-as-a-trademark/). Now, it is getting the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) to review a decision of the General Court (GC) on trademark and design matters arising from the EUIPO Boards of Appeal. As already reported (see at…

The district court erred by failing to analyze infringement under reverse confusion theory. The federal district court in Miami erred by concluding as a matter of law that Amazon.com, Inc.’s Fire TV television set-top box service was unlikely to be confused with Wreal LLC’s subscription-based adult content video streaming service called FyreTV. The district court…

The 2018 Farm Bill—which carved hemp out of the definition of marijuana—made products containing the Delta-8 THC isomer legal, which meant marks for the products could be federally protected. A manufacturer of e-cigarette and vaping products was entitled to a preliminary injunction barring a wholesaler from selling counterfeit versions of the manufacturer’s “Cake”-branded e-cigarette and…

The debate over the protection of the iconic “AUDI” logo in Poland is currently being renewed (see here). An injunction was sought by AUDI to stop another party from importing, offering, marketing, and advertising radiator grilles that bear a sign that is identical to or similar to its EU trade mark (“EUTM”) for the following…

Summary The owner of a boutique store, Ms. Kotrri (Applicant), successfully defended her trade mark application before the UKIPO for HOUSE OF ZANA, covering “clothing” in class 25, against apparel retailer, Inditex (Opponent). The Opponent sought to prevent registration on the basis of Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and relied…

Manufacturer of “Mystic Tan” machines failed to show consumers were likely to be confused by salon’s use of its own solution in Mystic Tan booths. The federal district court in Akron, Ohio, did not err in finding that a manufacturer of tanning booths under the mark “Mystic Tan” failed to show a likelihood of success…

The EU trademark law system does not have, unlike the US, a legal concept of “incontestability”. Instead, it has “acquiescence”, a defence against invalidity or infringement actions which can be raised against the owner of an earlier mark who has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of a later registered…