Actions which impinge upon the monopoly granted by an Intellectual Property right are considered infringements.
In Germany and specifically in Bavaria, a non-alcoholic mix drink with the ingredients Cola and Orange soda has reached cult status and may be recognized as one of the most popular non-alcoholic drinks. Among consumers this Cola and Orange mix drink is well-known as “Spezi”. One significant manufacturer and distributer of “Spezi” is the brewery…
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…
The EU trademark law system does not have, unlike the US, a legal concept of “incontestability”. Instead, it has “acquiescence”, a defence against invalidity or infringement actions which can be raised against the owner of an earlier mark who has acquiesced, for a period of five successive years, in the use of a later registered…
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…
The Ninth Circuit clarified that the first sale doctrine was not meant to be limited to purchasers who do no more than stock, display, and resell a producer’s product. In a trademark infringement suit involving the use of Bluetooth technology in Fiat Chrysler vehicles, the Ninth Circuit in an interlocutory appeal reversed a Washington district…
On 4 March 2021, the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court (the Court) issued a decision between Mads Heindorf Jewellery (Mads Heindorf) and the company Heindorf Diamonds. The dispute regarded the jeweler Mads Heindorf’s trademark for the word “Heindorf”, which was asserted infringed by Heindorf Diamonds’ use of the name “Heindorf Diamonds” in relation to…
First Circuit affirmed a decision to dismiss a trademark suit brought by Motus LLC against CarData Consultants Inc. for a lack of personal jurisdiction, and because alleged trademark infringement was not shown to be an intentional tort within the forum state. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a…
CA 8668/19 CHANEL v. SCENTWISH LTD— Supreme Court decision dated October 31, 2021 The Israeli Supreme Court has recently remanded to the District Court for further review a claim for a declaratory order filed by ScentWish Ltd. against Chanel S.A. ScentWish is an Israeli company which repacks regular sized parallel imports of well-known perfumes (including…
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…
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…
