NIKE no longer had a legally cognizable interest in the validity of the preliminary injunction. NIKE, Inc., was precluded from appealing a district court’s preliminary injunction issued in November 2019 barring the athletic footwear giant from using the phrase “Sport Changes Everything” in an advertising campaign, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond has ruled….

Genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the plaintiff’s electronic system for managing brokerage accounts contained protectable trade secrets. Trade secrets misappropriation claims brought by InteliClear, LLC, under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) against ETC Global Holdings have been reinstated by the U.S. Court…

The applied-for mark NORTH 61 was properly refused because it produced a similar commercial impression to the mark 66° NORTH when both were used for apparel and retail services. The proposed mark NORTH 61 was confusingly similar to the registered mark 66° NORTH, the Federal Circuit has held, affirming a decision of the Trademark Trial…

The record, however, supported that “Bayside Breeze” mark was not infringed by “Boardwalk Breeze” as a matter of law. In a trademark infringement suit between competing sellers of automotive air freshener products, a federal district court erred in finding on summary judgment that “Little Trees” brand products with a scent called “Black Ice” was not…

Fairly well, one should say. The three decisions issued to date should dispel some of the fears that many had, as to the capability of the administration of properly substituting the Courts in rectification/cancellation actions for non-use and cancellation/nullity proceedings. [Trademark Ordinance of 13th November 2019 that came into effect on 1st April 2020.] 1….

The TTAB did not abuse its discretion by canceling the registration for HOLLYWOOD BEER as a sanction for repeated and willful failure to comply with the Board’s discovery orders in a cancellation proceeding. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board did not abuse its discretion in cancelling registration for the mark HOLLYWOOD BEER on the Supplemental…

It is not common that local Indian companies sue multinationals for infringement in India – and win. However, recently, just that happened: Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. (“Parle ”) sued multinational retail giant Walmart India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (“Walmart India”) at the Bombay High Court for violating its trademark/trade-dress when it launched a deceptively similar…

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…

Japanese confectionary company’s Pocky cookie stick’s shape was useful and not entitled to trade-dress protection. A functional design that is useful, even if it is not an essential feature of a product, is not entitled to trade-dress protection, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined, affirming dismissal of a trademark lawsuit filed…

At the end of August 2020, the Russian competition authority (the “FAS”) issued two important decisions aimed at allowing a non-authorized import of trademarked products into Russia (so-called “parallel import”). Specifically, the FAS said that two major automotive producers violated competition law by restricting the parallel import of their parts from outside Russia. These decisions…