Substantial evidence supported the Board’s likelihood of confusion finding. Substantial evidence supported the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that registration of the mark FOCUSVISION for software and data management services was likely to cause confusion with previously registered marks FOCUS for software and database management services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal…
The district court on remand failed to explain the reason’s for its summary judgment and order directing the PTO to register a rival restaurant’s mark. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City for a second time has vacated a Manhattan district court’s judgment ordering the USPTO to grant New York City restaurant operator…
According to the German Federal Supreme Court’s decision of 29 July 2021 (Case I ZR 139/20) the gold-colored foil of Lindt’s chocolate bunny is protected by a trademark acquired through use. The Court lifted the decision of the Higher District Court Munich which had rejected an infringement action against a competing product denying trademark protection…
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…
The assessment of likelihood of confusion among descriptive marks often causes puzzling decisions, especially when the analysis focuses on whether consumers understand the descriptive character of certain terms, and when different consequences are attached to whether or not such understanding (or lack thereof) matters at all. The General Court (GC) on 28 April 2021…
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…
In our view they should, but the General Court held otherwise on January 27, 2021 in Case T-817/19, basically finding that coincidence in a non-distinctive element will still lead to a finding of likelihood of confusion. OmniVision GmbH, owner of an EUTM “HYLO-VISION” registered, among others, for medical preparations, filed an opposition against the EUTM…
The record, however, supported that “Bayside Breeze” mark was not infringed by “Boardwalk Breeze” as a matter of law. In a trademark infringement suit between competing sellers of automotive air freshener products, a federal district court erred in finding on summary judgment that “Little Trees” brand products with a scent called “Black Ice” was not…
In the High Court case of Sazerac Brands, LLC & Ors v Liverpool Gin Distillery Limited & Ors [2020] EWHC 2424 (Ch), conducted under the Shorter Trial Scheme, the Defendants’ use of its AMERICAN EAGLE sign was found to have infringed the Claimants’ registered rights in its mark, EAGLE RARE. The First Defendant’s UK trade…
A manufacturer of chemically strengthened glass sold under the IONEX mark failed to show that Apple’s use of the term Ion-X to describe the glass on the Apple Watch was infringing. A manufacturer of chemically strengthened glass that is marketed under the registered trademark IONEX failed to show that a reasonable jury could find there…
