Posts in Trademark

In Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, a unanimous Supreme Court sided with Jack Daniel’s and sent dog toy maker VIP Products scurrying away with its tail between its legs. The decision held that VIP’s commercial use of a dog toy, designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey, complete with droll variations on Jack Daniel’s trademarks, is not entitled to First Amendment protections for artistic expression under the “Rogers test.” Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F. 2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989). Instead, it is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood-of-confusion test to determine if consumers would be likely to confuse VIP’s dog toy with Jack Daniel’s, no matter how parodic. While the justices felt that artistic expression versus trademark use was cut and dried in this instance, that is not always the case in litigation focused on NFTs and the Metaverse.

The Taco John’s restaurant chain announced Tuesday that it will share its Taco Tuesday trademark, but also posed a challenge to Taco Bell and LeBron James “to Support Workers, Not Lawyers.” Taco Bell filed a Petition for Cancellation of the trademark for TACO TUESDAY on May 16, 2023. The mark was registered by Spicy Seasonings, LLC, which operates the Taco John’s restaurant franchise, in 1989 for “restaurant services.” Soon after, NBA star LeBron James joined Taco Bell’s fight by starring in a commercial where he was bleeped each time he uttered the phrase “Taco Tuesday.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied Apple’s June request that the court rehear a decision that effectively canceled the tech company’s application to register the trademark APPLE MUSIC. Apple had asked the court to rehear the case in order to direct the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to narrow the services listed in the trademark application so that it could proceed to registration. The owner of the trademark for APPLE JAZZ, Charles Bertini, in April won his appeal to the CAFC from the TTAB, which had dismissed his opposition to Apple, Inc.’s application to register the mark APPLE MUSIC. The 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 just one service.

Surveys conducted independent of litigation have had mixed success in court. These surveys have been offered as evidence of customer confusion in false advertising cases, intellectual property value in patent cases, consumer behavior in antitrust cases, and plaintiff identification in class actions. In some cases, non-litigation surveys have been admitted as useful evidence on important questions for which data are scarce; in others, they have been excluded as irrelevant or unreliable.

On June 8, the United States Supreme Court handed down a surprisingly decisive ruling on trademark law and its relationship with First Amendment rights. The Court found that free speech rights did not protect a manufacturer of dog toys, which mimicked a bottle of Jack Daniels, against an action for trademark infringement. The case has provoked widespread discussion among IP lawyers across the world regarding similar cases in other jurisdictions.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled today in Abitron Austria v. Hetronic International that Sections 1114(1)(a) and 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial in nature and that “‘use in commerce’ provides the dividing line between foreign and domestic applications of these provisions.” The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which upheld a $96 million damages award for Hetronic, was thus vacated and remanded. Justice Alito authored the opinion for the Court and Justices Jackson and Sotomayor each filed concurring opinions—though Sotomayor’s concurrence reads more like a dissent.  

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential opinion that vacated a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling that a trademark registration from GPS vehicle tracking company Spireon was likely to be confused with three trademarks from supply chain management company, Flex LTD. The appeals court found that the TTAB made several significant errors and thus vacated and remanded the case. Flex LTD opposed Spireon’s FL FLEX trademark due to likely confusion with three of its marks, FLEX, FLEX (stylized), and FLEX PULSE. The TTAB determined whether there was a likelihood of confusion using the Dupont factors. The Board found that Flex’s marks were inherently distinctive under the first factor, and using the second, third, and thirteenth Dupont factors concluded that there was overlap between the two companies’ marks and ruled that Spireon registered its mark in bad faith.

Upcycling, a recent fashion trend, poses issues and concerns for brand owners that are similar to counterfeiting but with some added complexity. As a result, upcycled products have prompted brand owners to take legal action to protect their brands and consequently their customers. Below, we (1) explain what upcycling is, (2) discuss potential legal issues arising from upcycled products, (3) summarize recent cases involving upcycled products, and (4) propose successful brand protection measures.

Earlier this week, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a report that offers a rebuttal to nine claims it identifies with the “anti-IP progressive orthodoxy.” Prominent progressive senators, including Senators Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), have turned up the heat on pharmaceutical companies’ drug pricing and IP policies. While members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have criticized big pharma, the ITIF report identifies other “anti-IP advocates” to rebut including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Public Knowledge, Joe Stiglitz, Dean Baker, and Arjun Jayadev. The ITIF report promotes the narrative that intellectual property rights are foundational to the United States as a nation and economy. However, the ITIF argues that anti-IP advocates are trying to persuade the Biden administration to move away from this traditional position.

Today, the International Trademark Association (INTA) published an amicus brief filed with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a case that should have major implications for the effects of Brexit on EU trademark law. INTA’s brief asks the CJEU to reverse a lower court’s decision and rule that the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) was correct in determining that UK trademark law can no longer provide a legal interest to sustain an opposition to an EU trademark application filed before Brexit.

Taco Bell is on the short list as one of my guilty (or not-so-guilty) pleasures. So, when the popular restaurant chain filed a cancellation action against the TACO TUESDAY trademark, I knew I had to write a piece about it. On May 16, 2023, Taco Bell filed a Petition for Cancellation of the trademark for TACO TUESDAY, which was registered by Spicy Seasonings, LLC in 1989 for “restaurant services. Spicy Seasonings operates the Taco John’s restaurant franchise. As you can see on their website, they claim to have coined the phrase.

There is no question that artificial intelligence (AI) has led to a monumental shift in intellectual property law and strategy. Most companies and attorneys are familiar with the current unsettled legal landscape as it relates to inventorship laws for intellectual property—namely, that inventions and works that are created through AI may or may not be eligible for patent or copyright protection, depending on the circumstances. But quietly in the background, AI has already been changing—and continues to change—how IP portfolios are created and managed. Below are five key ways that AI is changing how companies handle their IP portfolios. 

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products that the Rogers test, used to “protect First Amendment interests in the trademark context,” is not relevant “when an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a designation of source for the infringer’s own goods.” The Court therefore vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that said VIP’s dog toy mimicking a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle was an expressive work entitled to First Amendment protection. Justice Kagan authored the unanimous opinion for the Court, while Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Barrett, each filed concurring opinions.

Last week, Apple filed a petition for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to rehear a decision that effectively canceled the tech giant’s application to register the trademark APPLE MUSIC. The petition asks the court to rehear the case in order to direct the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to narrow the services listed in the trademark application so that it can proceed to registration.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted a petition brought by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Katherine Vidal that asks, “whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” The case was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in February of last year, and the full court denied a request for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc in August. The February CAFC decision held the Office’s application of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act to reject the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL was unconstitutional. Specifically, the CAFC panel held that “applying section 2(c) to bar registration of [Steve] Elster’s mark unconstitutionally restricts free speech in violation of the First Amendment.”