Posts Tagged: "Lanham Act"

On February 20, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The case presents the question of whether a debtor-licensor’s rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in bankruptcy, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365, results in the agreement’s complete termination, including loss of the licensee’s right to use the licensed trademark. Given that trademarks are the most widely used form of registered intellectual property, and trademark rights often are among a debtor’s key assets, the treatment of the debtor’s licenses of those rights is an issue that arises frequently in the bankruptcy context. For this reason, among others, the issue presented by this case has been hailed by the International Trademark Association (INTA) as “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.”

On December 28, 2018, the limited liability company representing famed Seattle-area grunge rock band Nirvana sued clothing designer Marc Jacobs and fashion retailers Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Central District of California. At the center of the lawsuit are copyright and trademark infringement allegations regarding the use of Nirvana’s “smiley face” logo on a line of designer clothing made by Marc Jacobs. Nirvana alleges that Marc Jacobs has used the band’s common law trademarks and infringed the band’s copyright in the smiley face logo in a misleading way in order to make it appear that Marc Jacobs’ “Bootleg Redux Grunge” clothing line is endorsed by or somehow associated with Nirvana. Nirvana first licensed the use of the smiley face logo, designed by deceased Nirvana front man Kurt Cobain in 1992, and it has been continuously used to identify Nirvana’s music and licensed merchandise since.

Secure cloud communications provider Ribbon Communications announced it would continue to enforce its intellectual property rights in the face of what it called “baseless attacks” by its UK-based cloud competitor Metaswitch Networks. Ribbon decried a recent antitrust lawsuit filed against it by Metaswitch and charged its competitor with continuing to infringe upon Ribbon’s patent claims despite earlier jury verdicts in district court which found that Metaswitch was infringing upon those asserted claims. Ribbon Communications’ announcement follows a lawsuit filed by Metaswitch Networks on November 19th in the Southern District of New York. “It is disappointing that Metaswitch is attempting to relitigate claims that it already lost in federal court,” said Ribbon CEO Franklin “Fritz” Hobbs. “Ribbon will not be deterred by these actions, and we look forward to having Ribbon’s intellectual property rights vindicated and Metaswitch finally paying for its misappropriation of Ribbon technology.”

Christopher Gordon, under the pseudonym “Randall,” released the Honey Badger movie in 2011 and the 3:20-long video has been viewed more than 89 million times. Gordon filed trademark applications to cover the use of the video’s well-known phrase Honey Badger Don’t Care in various classes including audio books, greeting cards, mugs and clothing. In 2012, Gordon hired a licensing agent who contacted American Greetings, the parent company of co-defendant Papyrus-Recycled Greetings, to discuss a potential licensing deal but those parties never agreed to a deal. Beginning in June 2012, the defendants released a series of seven greeting cards, including birthday, Halloween and election cards, which made use of the trademarked phrase Honey Badger Don’t Care and another well-known phrase from the video, Honey Badger Don’t Give A S—.

A closely watched cross-border trademark case finally has been resolved, and the results of the case have implications for global trademark holders. A  U.S. District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted Bayer AG’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing rival Belmora’s claims to the trademark FLANAX. In Mexico, Bayer uses the FLANAX mark for the popular pain medication known elsewhere as Aleve (naproxen), and successfully blocked Belmora’s attempt to market its own naproxen product under the mark FLANAX in the United States. The ruling also affirms a U.S. Trial and Appeal Board ruling that cancelled Belmora’s U.S. trademark for FLANAX, which the company secured in 2005. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had previously determined that the Lanham Act authorized Bayer’s claims against Belmora for unfair competition under §43(a) and its cancellation action under §14(3).

Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) and Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-TX) are co-sponsoring H.R. 6695, the Trademark Licensing Protection Act of 2018, which has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill is designed to clarify the law around trademark licensing for franchises in a way that reduces the liability of franchisees under current U.S. labor law.

On September 7, 2018, the government filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the case relating to Eric Brunetti’s clothing brand, called FUCT. Although Brunetti has marketed various apparel under the FUCT mark since the early 1990s, the application at issue in this case was filed in 2011. The examiner rejected the application under Section 2(a), finding that FUCT “is the past tense of F*CK,” and “is scandalous because it is disparaging and [] total[ly] vulgar.” The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed, finding that “the Trademark Examining Attorney has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a substantial composite of the general public would find this designation vulgar.” If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the Brunetti case, it could have a substantial impact on “shock value” marks in commerce.

Many other related issues remain ripe for consideration in Brunetti and future cases. Most significantly, are trademarks considered “commercial speech?”  If so, laws relating to trademarks might be subject to relaxed scrutiny for constitutional compliance rather than strict scrutiny… While Tam settled some issues related to The Slants, the Washington Redskins, and D*kes on Bikes, the decision’s full impact remains to be seen.  Brunetti seems to be a promising avenue for the Supreme Court to address some of the tangential issues left open by the Tam decision.

A little more than one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause as unconstitutional in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (June 19, 2017).  While Tam settled some issues related to The Slants, the Washington Redskins, and D*kes on Bikes, the decision’s full impact remains to be seen. Issues remain ripe for future consideration. Most significantly, are trademarks considered “commercial speech?”  If so, laws relating to trademarks might be subject to relaxed scrutiny for constitutional compliance rather than strict scrutiny.

Yes, under certain circumstances you can trademark a color… Examples of protectable color marks include: red soles for women’s high-heel dress shoes, where the rest of the shoe is not also red (Louboutin); pink fiberglass insulation (Owens-Corning); red knobs on cooking appliances (Wolf); light blue for jewelry boxes (Tiffany); brown for parcel delivery trucks and uniforms (UPS); magenta for telecommunications services (T-Mobile); and orange for scissor handles (Fiskars).

British luxury fashion brand Burberry filed a complaint alleging trademark infringement and dilution against American retailer Target Corporation in the Southern District of New York. At issue in the case is the sale of scarves and other fashion items in Target stores which include a pattern closely resembling the iconic Burberry check trademark.

On February 20th, Clearwater Beach, FL-based restaurateur Frenchy’s Corporate filed a suit alleging trademark infringement against the owners and operators of Frenchy’s Pizzeria & Tavern, located less than an hour’s drive away from Clearwater in Port Richey, FL. The suit, filed in the Middle District of Florida, aims to protect Frenchy’s Corporate trademark rights to the unregistered trademark “FRENCHY’STM” under…

Hasbro’s recent application to trademark the scent of Play-Doh is an example of how companies in the digital age market their products and protect their market share by using an complex intellectual property strategies. As more companies begin to implement nontraditional branding into their marketing strategies, they face legal uncertainties of how the law protects this form of intellectual property. Unfortunately, what qualifies as a legitimate scent mark remains opaque. This article will review the requirements of scent trademarks and discuss the complications associated with various aspects of these marks, including (1) the functionary doctrine; (2) the issue of scent subjectivity; (3) administrative and application difficulties; (4) the possibility of scent depletion; and (5) the uncertain benefits of scent trademarks.

The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) provides some guidance on what an aroma needs to demonstrate before being registered, asserting that “the amount of evidence required to establish that a scent or fragrance functions as a mark is substantial.” To overcome the “substantial” threshold, an applicant must satisfy two conditions by establishing that the mark is (1) nonfunctional and (2) distinctive. An aroma that meets both of these requirements is eligible for registration on the Principal Register under §2(f) of the Latham Act, or on the Supplemental Register if the scent is nonfunctional but has not yet acquired distinctiveness. Hasbro is hoping that the scent of Play-Doh can be a source identifier for its modeling compound in the noses of consumers.

While it is possible to copyright the design of a band logo, the band name itself is not copyrightable (see here and here). Band names are protectable under trademark law, because like brand names they allow us to distinguish one band’s music and identity from another. They are what enable us to distinguish between a “Beatles” record on the one hand, and a “Chipmunks” record on the other… The more unique the name, the greater the degree of trademark protection, but also the more the name will stand out and set the band apart from others, which is generally the goal.