Mealey's Trademarks
-
February 20, 2024
Interlocutory Appeal Of Relief In Trade Dress, Patent Case Succeeds
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in Texas abused his discretion in preliminarily enjoining a patent and trade dress infringement defendant from operating its trampoline park, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Feb. 16.
-
February 16, 2024
In IP Row With Former Firm, Accused Engineer Defends Summary Judgment
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in Utah correctly rejected on summary judgment a patent and copyright owner’s case in full against a former employee and his new, competing company, the employee and company tell the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an appellee brief.
-
February 16, 2024
Petition To Cancel ‘Babies’ Magic Tea’ Trademark Reinstated By Panel
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board must revisit its finding of no likely confusion between the “Baby Magic” and “Babies’ Magic Tea” trademarks, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded Feb. 15.
-
February 15, 2024
Request For Contempt Finding In Trademark, Design Patent Case Denied
HOUSTON — A federal judge in Texas on Feb. 14 rejected as premature allegations that a defendant has violated a stipulated preliminary injunction in a trademark and design patent infringement case by manufacturing and selling a redesigned floating pool chaise.
-
February 15, 2024
RICO Claim Tossed From Suit Alleging App Captures Data With Cyberpirated Marks
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge in California denied arbitration and dismissed a Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claim from a putative class complaint accusing a software company of collecting and selling personal data from a budgeting application for smartphones and of using cyberpirated trademarks and other information to entice users to enter their banking information but permitted the app user’s remaining claims under Utah and California law to proceed.
-
February 14, 2024
Consent Decree Entered Under 1 Dismissal In Case Over Alleged Counterfeit Policies
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A variety of claims and parties have been dismissed under agreements in a sprawling suit over allegations of fraud, trademark counterfeiting and trademark infringement involving captive reinsurance programs, with a Kentucky federal court permanently enjoining two defendants “from future infringement of Plaintiffs’ trademarks.”
-
February 14, 2024
Injunction Entered Under Agreement To Resolve Lloyd’s Trademark Infringement Case
HOUSTON — After Lloyd’s America Inc. and Corporation of Lloyd’s and the individual they sued over alleged defamation and trademark infringement reported reaching an agreement to resolve the suit, a Texas federal court entered a permanent injunction according to the terms of their agreement.
-
February 14, 2024
Challenge To USPTO Domicile Address Rule Turned Away By Panel
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A rule that bars reliance on a P.O. Box address in the broader U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) requirement that trademark applicants list domestic counsel was not arbitrarily enforced against a law firm, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Feb. 13.
-
February 13, 2024
Genericness, Infringement Of ‘Appliance Liquidation’ Mark Debated In 5th Circuit
NEW ORLEANS — An appliance outlet operator maintains in its reply brief to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that there is no evidence that it used the disputed “Appliance Liquidation Outlet” trademark “to identify the origin or sponsorship of its products” and, thus, the infringement claims against it failed and should have been dismissed by the trial court.
-
February 13, 2024
9th Circuit Upholds Injunction In Trademark Dispute Over Tattoo Ink
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California did not abuse his discretion in preliminarily enjoining a defendant from using the “Advanced Tattoo Ink” tag line or “ZUPER BLACK” and “INTENZE” trademarks while litigation over their potential infringement is pending, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled.
-
February 13, 2024
Profits On Trademark Claims Affirmed But Punitive Damage Award Do-Over Needed
CINCINNATI — A jury verdict in favor of two trademark plaintiffs and corresponding award of infringer’s profits will not be disturbed, but the jury’s award of punitive damages against defendants on state law unfair competition claims was premised on an incorrect instruction by a Kentucky federal judge, according to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
-
February 12, 2024
Injunction Is Part Of Agreement To Resolve Lloyd’s Trademark Infringement Case
HOUSTON — Lloyd’s America Inc. and Corporation of Lloyd’s and the individual they sued in Texas federal court over alleged defamation and trademark infringement have reported reaching an agreement to resolve the suit, with terms including entry of a permanent injunction.
-
February 06, 2024
Parties Debate Injunction Record, Await Ruling In OpenAI Trademark Dispute
SAN FRANCISCO — OpenAI Inc. submitted what it portrays as an administrative motion to supplement the record but really is a local-rule-breaking attempt at filing a surreply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction and fails to show the type of confusion the relief it seeks would warrant, defendants in a suit over a trademark and domain name argue in an opposition brief filed in California federal court.
-
February 01, 2024
Scope Of Blue Cross Common-Law Trademark Rights Not Ripe For Adjudication
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — A federal judge in Alabama on Jan. 31 denied a bid for summary judgment that the first two plans to use the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) trademarks acquiesced to later use by other plans or engaged in naked licensing of the marks.
-
February 01, 2024
Home Chef Asks High Court To Standardize Trademark Likelihood-Of-Confusion Test
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After being denied injunctive relief in a trademark dispute with GrubHub Inc., a food preparation firm filed a petition for certiorari, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that courts must consistently consider all of the relevant factors when undertaking a likelihood-of-confusion analysis in an infringement lawsuit.
-
January 31, 2024
Dismissal Bid Denied In Rare Criminal Trademark Counterfeiting Case
PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Jan. 30 said that criminal charges against the operator of a website where the trademarks of brand name drugs were used in connection with the sale of “prop” pills will remain in place.
-
January 31, 2024
5th Circuit Issues Limited Remand Over Typos In Trademark Injunction
NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge in Texas properly declared the “Rolex” trademarks infringed by a watch reseller, but two typographical errors in a subsequent permanent injunction render the ordered relief “vague and unqualified,” the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has concluded.
-
January 26, 2024
N.Y. Federal Judge Voices Skepticism Over Viability Of Atari Trademark Claims
NEW YORK — Three months after entering a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the case, a federal judge in New York on Jan. 25 denied a bid by Atari Interactive Inc. to obtain a preliminary injunction against a print-on-demand company, questioning whether the video game maker is likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claims.
-
January 25, 2024
American Airlines’ Trademark Case Against Travel Company Survives Dismissal Request
FORT WORTH, Texas — Allegations that a travel company inflated the costs of airline tickets by charging customers more than the actual ticket price and, in so doing, infringed the American Airlines (AA) trademark will proceed, a federal judge in Texas ruled in denying a motion to dismiss.
-
January 25, 2024
Damages Expert Admissible In Lanham Act Case For Aftermarket Pool Products
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — An expert retained to opine on damages a company incurred due to consumer confusion about aftermarket products for a pool can testify after a North Carolina federal judge rejected two companies’ motion to exclude and ruled that their objections go to weight, not admissibility.
-
January 23, 2024
Panel Rejects Mandamus Bid By Musician Seeking Cancellation Of Apple Mark
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A petition for a writ of mandamus by an applicant for the “Apple Jazz” trademark directing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to decide his request for cancellation of the “Apple” trademark for entertainment services in class 41 was denied Jan. 23 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
-
January 23, 2024
Panel Grants PTO Request, Reissues Trademark Ruling As Precedential
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A recent nonprecedential ruling by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a trademark application containing informational matter is refusable when the applied-for mark is not perceived as a source-identifier of the applicant’s goods or services was reissued Jan. 22, this time as precedential.
-
January 22, 2024
High Court Won’t Review Owner’s Individual Liability In Tobacco Trademark Row
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 22 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by a wholesale company and its owner seeking review of whether the owner may be held individually liable under the Lanham Act for an $11 million trademark infringement judgment despite his argument that he did not knowingly commit an act of infringement, which they claimed is the subject of a circuit split.
-
January 17, 2024
High Court Told ‘Chaos’ Will Ensue ‘In A World Without Chevron’ Deference
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court was told Jan. 17 that “chaos” will ensue “in a world without Chevron” deference by government attorneys, who urged it to apply stare decisis and uphold Chevron, which is being challenged in two cases arising out of federal fishing regulations.
-
January 18, 2024
Law Firm To 9th Circuit: ‘Common Practice’ Of Keyword Ads Infringed No Trademarks
SAN FRANCISCO — Asking the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to affirm a trial court’s judgment that its purchasing of a competitor’s trademark in Google keyword ads was not trademark infringement, an Arizona law firm contends in its appellee brief that the purchasing of such online advertisements is a “common practice” that, at best, resulted in de minimis consumer confusion.