BALTIMORE — A federal judge in Maryland on July 18 found that jurisdiction is lacking over the owner of a trademark for “ICAN” in a declaratory judgment action filed by Under Armour Inc. (Under Armour Inc. v. Kelsey Battle, No. 17-3223, D. Md., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119543).
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — A federal judge in Michigan on July 16 ordered a preliminary injunction to prevent a former franchisee from continuing to operate four restaurants branded as Little Caesars, saying the franchisor “would suffer substantial reputational harm” without the ban; the judge also denied the ex-franchisee’s motion to enjoin the franchisor from canceling the franchise (Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Miramar Quick Service Restaurant Corp. et al., No. 2:18-cv-10767, E.D. Mich., Southern Div., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117942).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court was presented with a second petition for certiorari in a dispute over the registration of the trademark “Booking.com” on July 5, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) asked the high court to find that the addition of a top-level domain (TLD), such as “.com,” to an otherwise generic term, such as “Booking,” does not serve to make it nongeneric and protectable (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al. v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The plaintiff in a long-running dispute over the “Sealtight” trademark filed its second petition for certiorari in the case with the U.S. Supreme Court on July 3, asking the high court to adopt a test for determining whether a trademark holder has engaged in fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in obtaining a registration, arguing that the circuit courts of appeal do not have a consistent standard (B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Industries Inc., et al., No. 19-48, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 11 agreed with an examining attorney that a proposed “Artisan NY” trademark for clothing items would likely confuse consumers in view of a pre-existing “Artesano New York City” trademark (In re: JS ADL LLC, No. 18-2017, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20549).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An examining attorney’s refusal to register the “APOGÉE” trademark sought by Louis Vuitton Malletier was proper, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board did not err in upholding the rejection, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded July 5 (In re: Louis Vuitton Malletier, No. 18-1651, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20044).
LOS ANGELES — Monster Energy Co. on July 3 appealed a federal district court’s order that denied its motion seeking a permanent injunction under the Lanham Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) against the producer and distributor of "Monster Mobile" automotive tools and other related goods and the court’s dismissal of its UCL claim for lack of standing (Monster Energy Company v. Integrated Supply Network, LLC, No. 17-548, C.D. Calif.).
BOSTON — The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 2 affirmed a lower federal court’s ruling that a commercial general liability insurance policy’s intellectual property (IP) exclusion bars coverage for underlying trademark infringement claims against a dental product manufacturer insured (Sterngold Dental, LLC v. HDI Global Insurance Company, No. 18-2084, 1st Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19781).
NEW YORK — In a July 1 appellee brief in the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a bee farm defends a trial court’s dismissal of trademark and copyright claims brought by a former licensor, contending that it did not remove copyright management information (CMI) from the plaintiff’s advertising materials (James H. Fischer v. Stephen T. Forrest Jr., et al., No. 18-2959, 2nd Cir.).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — A plaintiff persuaded a Kansas federal judge on June 27 to revisit and, ultimately, undo in part her April dismissal of federal and state trade dress infringement allegations levied by a bridalwear designer (Jenny Yoo Collection Inc. v. Essense of Australia Inc., No. 17-2666, D. Kan., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108254).
NEW YORK — Finding that insureds have not waived their right to defend on grounds of a lack of personal jurisdiction, a federal judge in New York on June 26 granted their motion to dismiss an insurer’s declaratory judgment suit challenging coverage for an underlying trademark infringement dispute (Hiscox Insurance Co., Inc. v. Curtis Bordenave, et al., No. 18-10222, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107012).
ST. LOUIS — The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 27 instructed a Minnesota federal judge to dismiss a complaint seeking confirmation of an arbitrator’s award that required a Florida insurance company to cease use of the term “Federated” within 90 days (Federated Mutual Insurance Company v. FedNat Holding Company, No. 18-2430, 8th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19216).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The question of whether a defendant accused of new offenses can be barred from raising defenses not actually litigated in a previous case involving the same plaintiff will be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which on June 28 granted certiorari in a trademark dispute that stretches back to 2001 (Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., No. 18-1086, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its June 28 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a long-running trademark case presenting an issue that has “sharply divided the courts of appeal,” according to a petitioner (Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., et al., No. 18-1233, U.S. Sup.).
MIAMI — A former franchisee on June 18 moved for a Florida federal court to reconsider its order a day earlier granting a motion for preliminary injunction that bars it from using Tim Hortons trademarks or service marks and from representing the restaurants as authorized Tim Hortons restaurants (Tim Hortons USA, Inc., States, et al. v. Tims Milner LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-24152, S.D. Fla.; 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100978).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Drawing heavily on its 2017 holding in Matal v. Tam that the Lanham Act ban on registering disparaging marks is unconstitutional, a divided U.S. Supreme Court on June 24 found that the statute’s related prohibition on registrations for “immoral or scandalous” trademarks also “collides” with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Andrei Iancu v. Erik Brunetti, No. 18-302, U.S. Sup.).
AUSTIN, Texas — Allegations of trademark dilution and infringement were rejected on summary judgment on June 18, when a federal judge in Texas found that confusion between Austin-area restaurants “Picnik” and “Bento Picnic” is possible, but not probable (Picnik Holdings LLC v. Bento Picnic LLC, et al., No. 18-897, W.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101439).
CHICAGO — In a June 11 holding, a panel of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a determination by a federal judge in Illinois that the “capsule” trademark for use in connection with cellular phone cases is invalid as descriptive (Uncommon LLC v. Spigen Inc., No. 18-1917, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17350).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 12 found no error in an Illinois federal judge’s decision to deny a trade dress infringement defendant judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that a plaintiff failed to prove that its “Chambord” French press coffeemaker features a nonfunctional design (Bodum USA Inc. v. A Top New Casting Inc., No. 18-3020, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17555).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 30 reply supporting its petition for certiorari over an attorney fees award granted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) after a successful challenge of a trademark registration denial, Booking.com B.V. asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consolidate its case with a similar already granted petition over a fees award in a patent validity lawsuit (Booking.com B.V. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 18-1309, U.S. Sup.).