Infringement

Actions which impinge upon the monopoly granted by an Intellectual Property right are considered infringements.

Bundesgerichtshof, Community Trademark, EUTM, Germany, Infringement, Infringement action, Likelihood of confusion, similarity of goods and services

(Lubberger Lehment )/ /Leave a comment

The ”Pearl” decision by the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) may not be brand new (15 October 2020), but it is interesting in many respects. This post will deal with the similarity of goods. Facts The plaintiff owns an EUTM, registered in 2009, and a German registration, from 2003, for the word PEARL. Both are protected…

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…

Case law, Infringement, Likelihood of confusion, United States

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

The summary judgment finding by the district court which rejected an air mattress company’s theory of initial-interest confusion and the accompanying jury instruction that a likelihood of confusion must exist at the time of purchase to support a trademark infringement claim was erroneous. In a suit by bedding manufacturer Select Comfort against a competitor for…

Case law, Infringement, Poland

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

On 18 May 2021, the Polish Supreme Court issued a much awaited ruling to resolve doubts concerning the national limitation period of non-pecuniary claims in trademark matters. The resolution was adopted in the context of an infringement case of the frontline EU trade mark (EUTM) owned by Audi AG (see below). The Supreme Court’s resolution…

India, Infringement

, (Khaitan & Co.)/ /Leave a comment

Any entity operating a fantasy sports platform would wish to display names of players and teams, for ease of identification and to make the platform as realistic as possible. Player or team names, however, where they act as source identifiers, would fall within the definition of a trademark, and their proprietors could enforce their rights…

Case law, Infringement, United States

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

Widow of longtime MAD artist Don Martin can go forward with mark infringement, publicity rights claims over publications that occurred within Florida’s four-year catch-all statute of limitations. The widow of MAD Magazine cartoonist Don Martin is not time-barred from pursuing trademark infringement and publicity rights claims against the publisher of MAD and DC Comics, to…

Case law, EUTM, Infringement, Likelihood of confusion, Similarity of marks, Sweden

(AWA)/ /Leave a comment

The Swedish Patent and Market Court (PMD) ruled out a likelihood of confusion between two figurative trademarks for “ghost” and “GHOST VODKA” based on their mere visual differences. In fact, the Court concluded that the sigs were dissimilar, without even analyzing the signs on a phonetical or conceptual level. A good outcome for the defendants…

Case law, Figurative mark, Infringement, Opposition, Poland

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

On 2 March 2021 the Polish Supreme Court finally decided that the famous Polish boxer Dariusz Michalczewski had won his case against FoodCare sp. z o.o. for the “Tiger” trademark for popular energy products (III CSKP 5/21). The internationally renowned Polish boxer Dariusz Michalczewski used the nickname “TIGER” during his sporting career. His nickname was…

Case law, Infringement, United States

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

Retailer allegedly created knockoff goods and acted as more than a hands-off intermediary. Australia-based online retailer Redbubble, Inc., could be directly liable for third-party sellers’ infringement of trademarks owned by the Ohio State University, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has held. Unlike online retailers or auction houses that typically had been found not…

Case law, Infringement, United States

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

NIKE no longer had a legally cognizable interest in the validity of the preliminary injunction. NIKE, Inc., was precluded from appealing a district court’s preliminary injunction issued in November 2019 barring the athletic footwear giant from using the phrase “Sport Changes Everything” in an advertising campaign, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond has ruled….