The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City has affirmed a district court’s decision that Macy’s Merchandising Group’s MAISON JULES line of women’s clothing—a private brand sold almost exclusively in Macy’s stores—did not infringe the trademark JOULES, owned by clothing retailer Joules Limited. Consumer confusion between the parties’ marks was not likely. Although the…

A federal district court did not err in awarding a preliminary injunction to Kourtney, Kim, and Khloe Kardashian and their companies—2Die4Kourt, Kimsaprincess Inc., and Khlomoney Inc.—that barred Hillair Capital Management and four related individuals and entities from using the Kardashians’ trademarks, the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled. The preliminary injunction was…

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 federal district court in Bowling Green, Kentucky, correctly held that a horse-race gambling platform (the “System”) developed by defendant Exacta Systems and used by defendant Kentucky Downs at its horse–racing track, did not infringe the trademarks owned by several plaintiff owners of horse-racing tracks when it displayed information, including the names of the plaintiffs’…