Posts Tagged: "famous trademark"

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to deny the trademark cancellation petition, finding that the Board used an incorrect standard for “fame” in its likelihood of confusion analysis… The Court rejected the Board’s all-or-nothing analysis, holding that it must consider all of the relevant confusion factors, on a scale appropriate to their merits, under the totality of the circumstances. It explained that the proper legal standard for evaluating the fame of a mark is the class of customers and potential customers of a product or service, not the general public…

In the assessment of similarity, the Board considered a term “MARCHE” to be less distinctive or inherently descriptive in connection with “retail services or wholesale services for foods and beverages” of class 35 since the term itself means “market” in French. Besides it can be seen often as a sign to indicate a place where merchants provide foods or beverages directly to consumers in Japan. Meanwhile, average consumers with an ordinary care are unlikely to perceive any descriptive meaning from the term of “RITZ”. Therefore, in the configuration of disputed mark “RITZMARCHE”, it should be allowed to extract the term “RITZ” as a prominent part of the mark.

In a dilution claim, a trademark owner asserts that their famous mark is entitled to protection from use that causes harm to the mark’s reputation or distinctiveness. In effect, the trademark owner is saying that the mark is so famous that even use in connection with unrelated goods or services would result in an affiliation with its business and a resulting decrease in the value of the mark. For example, you are inviting a dilution claim if you begin selling McDonalds Cars or Chevy Hamburgers. But recent dismissals of trademark dilution claims at the motion to dismiss stage highlight that plaintiffs must be prepared to show early on that their mark is a “household name” before they can pursue their claims. These decisions also show that defendants are more often turning to this early path to attack an exaggerated claim to fame.

Every year countless stories arise of individuals, churches, and small businesses, receiving cease and desist letters from the NFL or NCAA for unauthorized use and reference to their respective SUPER BOWL, MARCH MADNESS, and other trademarks. The success of these enforcement letters comes from a mixture of the organizations’ trademark rights under the Lanham Act and the fear that these financially well-endowed organizations could sue. The International Olympic Committee (“IOC”), and its national governing bodies, like the USOC (collectively the “Olympic Committee”), also aggressively enforce their rights in their Olympic trademarks, slogans, and symbols (the “Olympic properties”). The Olympic Committee not only employs the traditional methods of other sport organizations, but has several additional weapons that provide a true monopoly on the Olympic properties; thus, significantly increase its success.

Addressing the issue of whether a famous mark can be diluted by the identical mark of a much smaller company, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided that the district court rightly dismissed trademark infringement claims and cross-claims where neither party had been, or was likely to be, harmed by the other. Hugunin, et al. v. Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Case No. 15-2815 (7th Cir., Mar. 1, 2016) (Posner, J).