Pepsi earns reversal of pretrial order that would have required it to stop marketing a new Mountain Dew product. A federal district court was wrong to enjoin Pepsi from continuing to market a canned energy drink under the Mountain Dew line under the name of “rise energy” because the owner of the RISE mark was…
The district court erred by failing to analyze infringement under reverse confusion theory. The federal district court in Miami erred by concluding as a matter of law that Amazon.com, Inc.’s Fire TV television set-top box service was unlikely to be confused with Wreal LLC’s subscription-based adult content video streaming service called FyreTV. The district court…
The 2018 Farm Bill—which carved hemp out of the definition of marijuana—made products containing the Delta-8 THC isomer legal, which meant marks for the products could be federally protected. A manufacturer of e-cigarette and vaping products was entitled to a preliminary injunction barring a wholesaler from selling counterfeit versions of the manufacturer’s “Cake”-branded e-cigarette and…
The debate over the protection of the iconic “AUDI” logo in Poland is currently being renewed (see here). An injunction was sought by AUDI to stop another party from importing, offering, marketing, and advertising radiator grilles that bear a sign that is identical to or similar to its EU trade mark (“EUTM”) for the following…
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…
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 night setting on contentious administrative appeals in Spain On 14 January 2023, some rather fundamental changes are going to be implemented regarding trademark proceedings in Spain. These affect, firstly, trademark cancellation proceedings, and secondly, judicial appeals from rulings by the Spanish PTO. Spain is finally joining the rest of the EU Member States…
This decision by the High Court – Lavinia Deborah Osbourne v (1) Individuals Unknown (2) Ozone Networks Inc. – has now confirmed that NFTs should be considered property. The facts of this case are that Ms. Osbourne’s MetaMask wallet was used without her knowledge or permission and two NFTs representing digital pieces of art were…
On 26 November 2021, in BS-10861/2021-SHR, the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court found no likelihood of confusion between the EU-registrations to VITAYUMMY (used as ) and . Both for chewy vitamins in Class 5. The Court found that chewy vitamins should be considered to be a sub-category of dietary supplements in the form of fruit…
Like the previously invalidated bar on “disparaging” marks, the “immoral/scandalous” marks prohibition violated the First Amendment as a viewpoint-based restriction on free speech. The Lanham Act’s prohibition against registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment as a viewpoint-based restriction on expression, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. A divided Court affirmed a…
