Posts Tagged: "trademarks"

On  April 3, 2023, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) issued much needed guidance on how digital goods and services – namely non-fungible tokens (NFTs), virtual goods, and services provided in the metaverse – should be classified for trademark purposes. NFTs The UKIPO defines an NFT as “a unique unit of data (the only one existing of its type) that…

Can the Lanham Act apply to the conduct of foreign entities occurring entirely outside the United States and, if so, what is the test? The Supreme Court will soon decide this issue in Abitron v. Hetronic, potentially resolving a long-standing circuit split where six different tests presently co-exist. It will mark the first time since the Court’s 1952 ruling in Steele v. Bulova Watch Co. that it has spoken on extraterritoriality as it relates to the Lanham Act. Steele found that the Lanham Act does apply to a U.S. citizen using a registered U.S. trademark on spurious Bulova watches, many of which were bought by U.S. citizens in Mexico and brought back to the United States. Steele did not address whether the defendant’s U.S. citizenship, or his sourcing of parts from U.S. suppliers, were necessary conditions to subject matter jurisdiction. Enter Hetronic.

Brands — legally protected as trademarks — have value. We all understand that intuitively. Registering brands as federal trademarks also provides significant legal benefits, such as the presumption of ownership, validity, and nationwide priority in the mark. According to a recent study, the number of trademarks a company registers in a given year helps predict that company’s profitability and stock returns for the following year.

The Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Fox News attracted lots of attention. Claims of defamation, damages of $1.6 billion, the role of the First Amendment, and the press’ right to free speech were all key talking points around this lawsuit. What was not a part of these discussions were the implications to Fox’s trademark, FOX NEWS®. This case, even though it just settled, may have just cost Fox News a lot more than the $787.5 million settlement and the subsequent departure of Tucker Carlson—it could cost their name and brand.

Trademark applicant Charger Ventures LLC has lost its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB’s) finding that SPARK LIVING is likely to be confused with an earlier-registered mark, SPARK. The precedential decision was authored by Judge Reyna. Both marks cover real estate services, but Charger amended its application to specify residential real estate services, whereas the earlier mark specified services related to commercial real estate property. Charger also disclaimed the term “LIVING” in response to the examiner’s request. However, the examiner ultimately issued a final office action refusing the application on the grounds that “a comparison of the respective marks show[s] that they are comprised either in whole or significant part of the term ‘SPARK,’”…and both marks are for real estate services, with ‘overlapping identifications of leasing and rental management services.’”

Just days after a complaint was filed against restaurant chain Sweetgreen by Chipotle Mexican Grill for trademark infringement, dilution, and deceptive business practices, Sweetgreen has changed the name of its offending product in order to reach possible settlement. Last week, Chipotle filed a complaint against Sweetgreen for naming its new menu item  “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl”. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. et al. v. Sweetgreen Inc., case number 8:23-cv-00596, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Chipotle has numerous registered trademarks for variations on the word CHIPOTLE in relation to its restaurant and food, including stylized versions in various fonts. Prior to filing the complaint, Chipotle sent Sweetgreen a cease-and-desist letter asking the salad chain to drop the word “chipotle” from the name, which is the usual practice in trademark related lawsuits.

Current artificial intelligence (AI) systems can generate an astonishing variety of content, including text-based works, audio, video, images, programming code, product designs, technical papers, etc. In many cases, the output from an AI system is virtually indistinguishable from that of a human. This trend is expected to continue at an ever-increasing rate in the coming years. Since content solely generated by an AI system is not available for protection under existing intellectual property laws, the following are practical guidelines for human creators who wish to protect content that was created with the assistance of an AI system.

The owner of the trademark for APPLE JAZZ has won his appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which dismissed his opposition to Apple, Inc.’s application to register the mark APPLE MUSIC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) said the TTAB legally erred in allowing Apple to claim absolute priority for all of the services listed in its application based on a showing of priority for one service. Apple filed Trademark Application No. 86/659,444 for APPLE MUSIC, which the company has been using since 2015, when it launched its music streaming service. Charles Bertini, the owner of APPLE JAZZ, registered his mark in New York state in 1991 for entertainment services but began using the mark well before that, in 1985. Unaware that he did not have a federal registration, Bertini filed an opposition against Apple, Inc.’s federal registration for APPLE MUSIC in 2016, along with an application to register APPLE JAZZ with the USPTO.

Resources such as marketing and branding agencies can help new businesses struggling to find a unique brand name, and lawyers specializing in trademark law can help evaluate infringement and refusal risks and assist in registering a trademark. That said, the costs associated with each of these options are not insignificant, leading some smaller brands and startups to choose a name, do a quick internet search for prior use, and just hope they don’t face repercussions. One of the many issues with this is that as a new business grows and becomes more recognizable, the increased exposure makes it easier for someone with pre-existing rights to find and enforce those rights against the new business. This could include financial penalties and a complete rebrand of the business causing confusion to established customers, which is why choosing and trademarking one’s brand name early is vital. Insert Artificial Intelligence (AI). I

At today’s hearing in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices suggested to both sides that there might be an easier way out on the facts of this particular case than either party is proposing, but weighed the need to overturn the Second Circuit’s test in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), which some of the Justices characterized as injecting unnecessary confusion. Though the Court seemed equally concerned about retaining a way for defendants making clearly parodic use of a mark to get out of litigation quickly, which Rogers is intended to do, they questioned both sides about why in this case they couldn’t either find for Jack Daniel’s by just saying that VIP is clearly using a source identifier on a commercial product, or remand to the district court to say they failed to properly weigh the parody or proximity factors of the product, for instance. Overall, the Justices seemed skeptical that the product in question represents a non-commercial use.

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., which asks the Court to consider whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act extraterritorially to Abitron’s foreign sales, “including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers.” The Justices struggled with the appropriate reach of the Lanham Act and whether reversing the Tenth Circuit would require overruling Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 282-285 (1952), but overall seemed to be considering the need for a new or narrowed test to account for the realities of modern commerce.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday upheld a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirming an examiner’s refusal to register the mark OXIPURITY for chemical products. The court agreed with the TTAB that OXIUPURITY is likely to be confused with the previously registered mark, OXYPURE, for ““hydrogen peroxide intended for use in the treatment of public and private potable water systems and supplies.”

On February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a motion for leave filed by the U.S. Solicitor General to participate in oral argument, as well as for divided argument and for enlargement of oral argument time, in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. While the Court’s decision to grant the motion shows its interest in the Solicitor General’s arguments in favor of limiting the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act, a reply brief filed the same day by petitioner Abitron argues that the federal government’s proposed legal tests still go too far in allowing Lanham Act claims to reach foreign infringing sales. Last September, the U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief representing the views of the federal government on the issues in Abitron Austria, a case which asks whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit erred in awarding civil remedies under the Lanham Act for infringement of U.S. trademarks through purely foreign sales that neither reached the United States nor confused U.S. consumers. In its brief, the Solicitor General urged the Supreme Court to grant Abitron’s petition for writ of certiorari and rein in the Tenth Circuit’s approach toward awarding Lanham Act damages for foreign infringing sales.

Luxury design house Hermès International and Hermès of Paris, Inc. (Hermès) is known for designing, producing and marketing the iconic Birkin handbag. Since 1986, Hermès has sold over $1 billion worth of these handbags in the United States, with over $100 million dollars of sales in the past 10 years alone. With its distinctive appearance and high price tag, the Birkin bag is considered a symbol of wealth and exclusivity…. After hearing the evidence and arguments of both parties over the course of three days, the nine-person jury returned a verdict for Hermès on all its claims, awarding Hermès US$133,000 in total damages…. Moments before jury selection, the court granted Hermès’ motion to exclude the testimony of Rothschild’s “art expert,” Dr. Blake Gopnik. Rothschild had proffered Dr. Blake Gopnik as an expert to explain to the jury that Rothschild’s promotion and sale of the MetaBirkins NFTs was protected by the First Amendment as “business art” similar to that of Andy Warhol and his well-known soup can art.

A company’s trademark activity is a very telling indicator of whether it is interested in a particular country’s or region’s market. Often, a national intellectual property (IP) office or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) IP registry can speak loudest about a company’s true intentions. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on February 24, 2022. It is instructive to examine how foreign companies behaved with respect to IP registration and renewal in Ukraine to predict how they view business prospects in Ukraine going forward.