MIAMI — Adopting a magistrate’s report and recommendation, a Florida federal judge on July 26 found that an online adult entertainment company failed to establish any likelihood of confusion between its “FyreTV” pornographic service and the “Fire TV” product offered by Amazon.com Inc., granting the internet retailer’s motion for summary judgment on the trademark infringement claims against it (Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-21385, S.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125890).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a July 29 ruling, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a grant of summary judgment by a federal judge in Washington who rejected allegations that Whole Foods Market Services Inc. infringed the “Eat Right” trademark (Eat Right Foods Ltd. v. Whole Foods Market Services Inc., No. 18-35473, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22428).
ST. LOUIS — Efforts by PetSmart Inc. to obtain dismissal of allegations of trade dress infringement were unsuccessful on July 26, when a federal judge in Missouri found that online sales of PetSmart’s “Great Choice” kitty litter could be actionable (Nestle Purina Petcare Company v. PetSmart Inc., No. 18-1232, E.D. Mo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125195).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 7 found no abuse of discretion in a California federal judge’s entry of preliminary injunctive relief in a dispute over the “GRAM” trademark for use in connection with digital currency (Telegram Messenger Inc. v. Lantah LLC, No. 18-16695, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21158).
RICHMOND, Va. — A Maryland federal judge erred in entering judgment against the president of a corporation that infringed the “Life Technologies” trademark where the individual was not named as a defendant “or otherwise brought into the case by service of process,” the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 24 (Life Technologies Corp. v. Krishnamurthy Govindarai, No. 16-1803, 4th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22081).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California issued a permanent injunction against a former Baskin-Robbins franchisee on July 16 and ordered him to pay approximately $125,000 in damages and interest for breaching the franchise agreement, trademark infringement and unfair competition (Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC, et al. v. Alan A. Chun, No. 18-cv-05476-BLF, N.D. Calif, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118457).
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.).