Case law

The body of law drawn from the precedents set by earlier decisions.

Case law, EU trade mark law, Germany

(Hildebrandt.)/ /Leave a comment

The German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) has issued a landmark decision on the relationship between national trademark law and the protection of geographical indications under EU law. The case is called “Hohenloher Landschwein / Hohenloher Weiderind”, with Hohenlohe being a region in Southern Germany, and Landschwein and Weiderind translating into country pork and grazing cattle, respectively…

cancellation, Case law, Evidence, United States

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/ /Leave a comment

Panel confirms that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) need not find that a German company owned a US trademark rights to pursue a cancelation action. In denying a California piano retailer’s petition for rehearing, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has expanded on the panel’s prior decision…

Case law, Infringement, United States

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/ /Leave a comment

A party that was voluntarily dismissed from an ordinary trademark infringement case was not the “prevailing” party and was not entitled to attorney fees under the Lanham Act or Florida law. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta has affirmed a Florida district court’s decision that a defunct bus service company that had been voluntarily dismissed from…

Case law, Infringement, Likelihood of confusion, United States

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/ /Leave a comment

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…

Brand Protection, Case law, Trademark, United Kingdom

, (Stobbs IP)/ /Leave a comment

The scope of protection of a trade mark registration is a key question faced by trade mark practitioners when advising on rebrands. The recent Oatly case [Oatly AB v Glebe Farm Foods Limited [2021] EWHC 2189 (IPEC)] raises some interesting questions in the context of a likelihood of confusion and unfair advantage. Oatly owned a…

Case law, EU trade mark law, Genuine use, Reputation

(Osborne Clarke, University of Wrocław)/ /Leave a comment

On 1 September 2021, Sony’s ‘Vita’ trade mark lost out in genuine use revocation proceedings in the EU General Court (see case T‑561/20). The trade mark Vita had been registered by Sony for a variety of class 9 items, including “data carriers containing programs” and “audio and/or image carriers (not of paper).” Vieta Audio applied…

Case law, Likelihood of confusion, United States

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/ /Leave a comment

Substantial evidence supported the Board’s likelihood of confusion finding. Substantial evidence supported the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that registration of the mark FOCUSVISION for software and data management services was likely to cause confusion with previously registered marks FOCUS for software and database management services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal…

Case law, Likelihood of confusion, United States

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/ /Leave a comment

The district court on remand failed to explain the reason’s for its summary judgment and order directing the PTO to register a rival restaurant’s mark. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City for a second time has vacated a Manhattan district court’s judgment ordering the USPTO to grant New York City restaurant operator…

Case law, Confusion, United States

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/ /Leave a comment

Trial evidence supported the district court’s judgment, blocking registration of VAGISAN in the United States. The federal district court in Alexandria did not err in finding that a German company’s mark VAGISAN used on feminine care products was likely to cause confusion with Combe, Inc.’s VAGISIL brand used on identical and overlapping goods, the U.S….

Case law, Fees, Infringement, United States

(Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory US)/ /Leave a comment

The district court’s attorney fee award was reasonable and did not violate First Amendment freedom of speech. In a trademark infringement case between two civic organizations that promote political candidates in Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a judgment by the district court awarding over $148,000 in attorney fees. In…