On 25 February 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have officially withdrawn their trade mark applications for the words “SUSSEX ROYAL” and “SUSSEX ROYAL THE FOUNDATION OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX”. The couple further announced that they will stop using the brand from Spring 2020. The couple launched their brand last April…
Interactive website’s option allowing customers to select Illinois as “ship-to” destination for defendant’s supplement products was among factors cited in reversal of district court’s dismissal of trademark infringement claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago has reversed the dismissal of Lanham Act and state law claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that defendant…
Refusal of THE JOINT trademark application was affirmed on the grounds that the mark was merely descriptive of the applicant’s hospitality business services and acquired distinctiveness was not demonstrated. A hospitality services’ applications to register the mark “THE JOINT” for two different classes of services were properly refused because the mark was merely descriptive of…
Much has changed since the new Canadian Trademarks Act came into effect on June 17th 2019. Although practitioners were advised well in advance of the legislative and regulatory changes, there were many surprises, some unwelcome. Below are a few noteworthy changes that applicants should be well aware of before filing in Canada. New “Non-Distinctive” ground…
An exclusive licensee that did not own the mark outright when the suit began lacked standing to sue for infringement. An exclusive licensee of a trademark when a trademark infringement suit began—which only became the owner of the mark mid-litigation—lacked standing to bring a trademark infringement action, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans…
Facts The plaintiff provides orthodontal treatment under his trade name Polzar. The defendant runs a network of orthodontists which assists them in marketing their services. The defendant had placed an Adwords ad on Google for the network and used the plaintiff’s trade name “Polzar” as a keyword. The ad itself did not mention the name…
Two sports companies, Sports Group Denmark A/S (“Sports Group”) and WaterNlife ApS (“WaterNlife”) conflicted over the use of ENDURANCE as a trademark for sports clothing. Sports Group had registered the device trademark However, the trademark was not used as registered. Mostly, Sports Group used the mark in a much simpler and minimalistic version that looked…
A district court should not have applied the doctrine of claims preclusion in the primary dispute over the mark IDHAYAM, based on a prior TTAB proceeding, but the mark owner waived its claims as to two other trademarks. Infringement claims by V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils (“VVV”) over a competing company’s use of the mark…
The media bombshell was dropped by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex last week. In a widely reported announcement Harry and Meghan have unveiled their intention to step back from Royal life, embrace a new working model and have financial independence. What has also been reported, yet less widely, is the move by the Sussexes…
“Reverse trademark confusion” infringement theory suffices for liability but does not support recovery of infringer’s profits. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago has affirmed a Wisconsin federal jury’s verdict finding that defendant JFTCO, Inc. (“JFTCO”) infringed the registered FABICK trademark owned by plaintiff Fabick, Inc. (“FI”). The court also affirmed two district court rulings…
