In a trademark dispute over use of the brand name ROGUE for clothing, the federal district court in New York City erred by ruling on summary judgment that an apparel manufacturer was the rightful owner of the mark for clothing, and that an Oregon brewery was only entitled to sell clothing under the ROGUE Mark…

A federal district court’s award of attorney fees under the Lanham Act and Utah’s Truth in Advertising Act (UTIAA) to a defendant following the parties’ stipulation of dismissal has been vacated and the case remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver. The defendant was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney fees under…

Substantial evidence supported the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that the mark “AQUAPEL” and design for leather and imitation leather hides, furniture covers, and various home goods was confusingly similar to the mark “AQUAPEL,” registered in standard characters, for different types of home goods, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has…

The federal district court in Los Angeles did not err in dismissing trademark infringement, dilution, and related claims brought by Ketab Corporation—a telephone directory and marketing services to the Iranian community in the Los Angeles area—against a competing directory service provider, an Iranian television channel, a law firm, and others involved in providing services to…

The federal district court in Tampa properly determined that a karaoke disc jockey’s use of unauthorized copies of karaoke tracks displaying Phoenix Entertainment Partners’ SOUND CHOICE mark did not constitute trademark infringement or unfair competition under the Lanham Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta has ruled in an unpublished decision. Adopting the reasoning…

The federal district court in Grand Rapids, Michigan, did not err in determining that Viacom’s BUBBLE GUPPIES animated children’s television show on the Nickelodeon Network and related merchandise did not infringe registered trademarks for GUPPIE owned and used by a Michigan couple in connection with children’s clothing, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has…

The federal district court in Charlotte, North Carolina, did not err in finding thatGrayson O Company’s registered mark “F 450” for a line of hair care products was not infringed by Agadir International’s hair care products sold under the mark HAIR SHIELD 450°, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, has held. despite the…

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board did not err in refusing to register the mark EMPORIUM ARCADE BAR and Design, absent a disclaimer of the word “EMPORIUM,” in addition to the disclaimed term “ARCADE BAR,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that EMPORIUM was…

The federal district court in San Diego did not err in ruling on summary judgment that Seal Shield LLC failed to establish that its predecessor had used the mark LIFE PROOF in commerce in connection with electronic device covers before Otter Products’ subsidiary TreeFrog Developments applied to register LIFEPROOF, the U.S. Court of Appeals in…

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board properly affirmed a trademark examining attorney’s refusal to register two proposed marks consisting of prominent wording—”SHIMMERING BALLERINAS & DANCERS CHARACTER COLLECTION” and “SHIMMERING RAINFOREST CHARACTER COLLECTION,” respectively—adjacent to three columns of hundreds of terms that appeared to be story titles or character names, the U.S. Court of Appeals for…