A manufacturer of chemically strengthened glass sold under the IONEX mark failed to show that Apple’s use of the term Ion-X to describe the glass on the Apple Watch was infringing.

A manufacturer of chemically strengthened glass that is marketed under the registered trademark IONEX failed to show that a reasonable jury could find there was a likelihood of confusion between its trademark and Apple’s use of the term Ion-X to describe the chemically strengthened glass used on the Apple Watch. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Apple, finding that the IONEX mark was weak, the parties sold very different products to very different customers, and that there was no evidence of bad faith or of actual confusion in the (Saxon Glass Technologies Inc. v. Apple, Inc., September 11, 2020, per curiam).

Case date: 11 September 2020
Case number: No. 19-2190-cv
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.


_____________________________

To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Trademark Blog, please subscribe here.


Kluwer IP Law

The 2021 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 81% of the law firms expect to view technology as an important investment in their future ability to thrive. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?

Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *