The body of law drawn from the precedents set by earlier decisions.
Pepsi earns reversal of pretrial order that would have required it to stop marketing a new Mountain Dew product. A federal district court was wrong to enjoin Pepsi from continuing to market a canned energy drink under the Mountain Dew line under the name of “rise energy” because the owner of the RISE mark was…
With Judgment of 6 April 2022, the Federal Supreme Court upheld FIFA’s claim that the marks “PUMA WORLD CUP QATAR 2022” and “PUMA WORLD CUP 2022” were misleading, ordered these marks to be removed from the register and referred the case back to the Zurich Commercial Court to decide on the question of injunctive relief…
The district court erred by failing to analyze infringement under reverse confusion theory. The federal district court in Miami erred by concluding as a matter of law that Amazon.com, Inc.’s Fire TV television set-top box service was unlikely to be confused with Wreal LLC’s subscription-based adult content video streaming service called FyreTV. The district court…
The 2018 Farm Bill—which carved hemp out of the definition of marijuana—made products containing the Delta-8 THC isomer legal, which meant marks for the products could be federally protected. A manufacturer of e-cigarette and vaping products was entitled to a preliminary injunction barring a wholesaler from selling counterfeit versions of the manufacturer’s “Cake”-branded e-cigarette and…
Summary The owner of a boutique store, Ms. Kotrri (Applicant), successfully defended her trade mark application before the UKIPO for HOUSE OF ZANA, covering “clothing” in class 25, against apparel retailer, Inditex (Opponent). The Opponent sought to prevent registration on the basis of Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and relied…
Manufacturer of “Mystic Tan” machines failed to show consumers were likely to be confused by salon’s use of its own solution in Mystic Tan booths. The federal district court in Akron, Ohio, did not err in finding that a manufacturer of tanning booths under the mark “Mystic Tan” failed to show a likelihood of success…
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…
This decision by the High Court – Lavinia Deborah Osbourne v (1) Individuals Unknown (2) Ozone Networks Inc. – has now confirmed that NFTs should be considered property. The facts of this case are that Ms. Osbourne’s MetaMask wallet was used without her knowledge or permission and two NFTs representing digital pieces of art were…
Primo July we published an article about the Advocate General’s opinion on the use of protected designations of origin (PDO) for export to third countries. Read the article here. With the recent judgment from European Court of Justice (ECJ) in case C-159/20, it is established that the opinion has been followed in its substance. The…
Like the previously invalidated bar on “disparaging” marks, the “immoral/scandalous” marks prohibition violated the First Amendment as a viewpoint-based restriction on free speech. The Lanham Act’s prohibition against registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment as a viewpoint-based restriction on expression, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. A divided Court affirmed a…
