The body of law drawn from the precedents set by earlier decisions.
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…
Inspired by my co-blogger Agnieszka Sztoldman’s August post on Teva’s headache over slogan (EU) trade marks, and the mood-lifting granting of protection to the slogan “STIMMUNG HOCH ZWEI” in Austria (see details below), this is to provide an overview on the protection of slogans and taglines in recent Austrian case law. As any other trademarks,…
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…
As readers may recall, the General Court rendered a judgment around two years ago in the Asolo v Red Bull case (known under FLÜGEL – T-150/17 of 4 October 2018) ruling on similarity, or rather dissimilarity, between alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. While the FLÜGEL case concerned specifically energy drinks vs. alcoholic drinks, the General Court…
