“To grant trade-dress protection for Pocket Plus,” the court said, “would be to hand it a monopoly over the ‘best’ portable-pouch design,” which trademark law precludes. In a trade-dress infringement suit by portable pouch maker Pocket Plus against its direct competitor Running Buddy, an Iowa district court’s grant of summary judgment to Running Buddy was…
In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Madrid Protocol gave a European company priority of right in a trademark even without prior use in commerce. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the California district court that Bacardi’s use of BACARDI UNTAMEABLE for rum did not as a matter of law infringe…
The Ninth Circuit clarified that the first sale doctrine was not meant to be limited to purchasers who do no more than stock, display, and resell a producer’s product. In a trademark infringement suit involving the use of Bluetooth technology in Fiat Chrysler vehicles, the Ninth Circuit in an interlocutory appeal reversed a Washington district…
Full disclosure of the identity of the restorer and the used nature of the product protects a seller of second-hand goods from liability for a trademark infringement claim. Hamilton International Ltd., a well-known pocket watch parts manufacturer, failed to prove the likelihood of consumer confusion in its suit alleging that Vortic LLC infringed its trademark…
A permanent injunction preventing an ex-band member from touring as “The Commodores featuring Thomas McClary” extended extrajudicially to European performances. In a long-running dispute in which Commodores Entertainment Corp. (CEC) has repeatedly prevailed in its efforts to stop former Commodores member Thomas McClary from using the “Commodores” name in musical performances, the U.S. Court of…
The Third Circuit ruled that Galderma Laboratories owned the trademark to “Restoraderm” pursuant to a 2002 contract between Galderma’s predecessor in interest and the individual inventor of “Restoraderm,” reversing a lower court ruling that the inventor owned the trademark because a subsequent 2004 contract superseded the 2002 agreement. Case date: 26 February 2019 Case number: No….
