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…
There was no evidence that the firm’s marks achieved secondary meaning, and the same marks were being used as trademarks as well as service marks in the advertising space. Plaintiffs and Appellants Engage Healthcare Communications, L.L.C., Greenhill Healthcare Communications, L.L.C. and Center of Excellence Media, L.L.C. (“Engage”) lost their appeal of an order granting summary…
The attorney was unable to show that the USPTO’s decision was arbitrary or capricious. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision to dismiss an attorney’s challenge of his bar license suspension as the attorney’s procedural and substantive challenges to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s disciplinary proceeding were rejected…
Because the contract did not give a popcorn manufacturer a perpetual license to sell popcorn under the Mrs. Fields trademark, the manufacturer should not have been granted a preliminary injunction ordering Mrs. Fields to comply with the contract terms. A popcorn manufacturer did not establish a strong likelihood that it will prevail on its claim…
