Posts Tagged: "trademark litigation"

On December 27, less than one week before the National Hockey League’s (NHL) Seattle Kraken defeated the Vegas Golden Knights in the 2024 Winter Classic, a lawsuit was filed in the Western District of Washington against the Kraken. The lawsuit alleges that Seattle’s NHL franchise wore an infringing jersey during the Winter Classic, and has sold infringing merchandise, after shutting out the legitimate business interests of a passionate Seattle-area fan who revived that city’s championship legacy more than 90 years after the previous franchise folded.

This year has seen a bonanza of significant trademark decisions, including several high- profile decisions from the Supreme Court. Courts ruled on issues ranging from First Amendment and parody considerations to the extraterritorial reach of U.S. trademark law, yet in most cases returned to basic principles of trademark law to resolve the open issues. Below is a selection of a few of those significant cases from the previous year.

A trademark lawsuit filed by popular grocery store chain, Trader Joe’s, against a cryptocurrency platform called “Trader Joe”—which the complaint alleges is a deliberate reference to the supermarket—has come to light this week. Trader Joe’s claims that the crypto firm buried its origin story in order to win international litigation over the domain name, traderjoexyz.com. Trader Joe’s has offered grocery services under the mark TRADER JOE’S for more than 50 years. According to the lawsuit, a co-founder of the crypto company Trader Joe, going by the handle “cryptofish,” admitted in a Substack publication that the company’s name originally derived from the name of the Trader Joe’s supermarket chain.

On August 1, Apple filed a motion to amend its trademark application for the mark APPLE MUSIC with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) following its recent loss at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Apple is asking the TTAB to allow it to remove “live performance services, as well as related services,” from the application in order to get around the CAFC’s ruling and since the Opposer, Charles Bertini, did not make the argument on which the ruling was based before the TTAB.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday affirmed the dismissal of Metamorfoza’s trademark infringement and unfair competition claims against Big Funny over a trademark that included the disclaimed phrase “Museum of Illusions.” Big Funny also cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees, but the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court, finding that it had acted within its discretion in denying fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) because the case was not “exceptional.” Big Funny and Metamorfoza both operate multiple museums called “Museum of Illusions” in the United States. Big Funny operates museums in California and Florida, while Metamorfoza has museums in New York, Missouri and Texas.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York unsealed multiple documents last week that named the kingpins behind an alleged counterfeit HIV medication conspiracy. An unsealed amended complaint filed in late September names the two alleged kingpins as Lazaro Roberto Hernandez and Armando Herrera, both of Florida. The two “kingpin defendants” are accused of being “at the head of the conspiracy” and “career criminals who organized the conspiracy and controlled the flow of the counterfeits, all while operating from the shadows and using extensive measures to conceal their identities.” Hernandez was identified by basic geolocation data associated with burner phones used to communicate details about the conspiracy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential trademark decision upholding a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling that sustained two oppositions filed by Barclays Capital Inc. against Tiger Lily Ventures’ applications for registration of the standard character mark “LEHMAN BROTHERS.” The court also affirmed the dismissal of Tiger Lily’s opposition to Barclays’ application for registration of the LEHMAN BROTHERS mark and dismissed Barclays’ cross-appeal.

Civil processes and procedures in the Brazilian Courts have been increasingly expedited due to the digitalization of case files and the assignment of courts specialized in specific matters (for instance, in corporate and intellectual property law). But the timeframe for judicial disputes involving IP rights in Brazil can be expedited even more for foreign companies by complying with the following procedural requirements.

Decades of trademark litigation cases have relied on survey evidence that aims to assess what consumers in the marketplace subjectively believe to be true. These methods are intended to answer important trademark questions, including whether consumers believe a mark to be a common term or a brand name and whether consumers mistakenly believe a product bearing a defendant’s mark originates from the plaintiff. While survey and marketing experts often rely on versions of commonly used trademark surveys (e.g., Teflon, Thermos, Eveready and Squirt formats), these formats in their conventional design may, in some situations, mask critical information about consumers’ beliefs or attitudes that could change the research conclusions — the strength or certainty of those beliefs or attitudes.  

Toy maker Hasbro has been rebuked by the EU General Court, after it was found to have applied to register an EU trademark (EUTM) for MONOPOLY in bad faith. The company has owned the MONOPOLY brand since acquiring Parker Bros in 1991. It filed the EUTM application, for various goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28 and 41, in April 2010 and the mark was registered in 2011. Hasbro owned three earlier EU word marks for MONOPOLY, which were registered in 1998, 2009 and 2010 and are still live. These covered some of the same goods and services as those specified in the 2010 application. After the latest application was registered, it was attacked by a Croatian company called Kreativni Doga?aji, which argued that the application was a “repeat filing” of the earlier marks and “was aimed at circumventing the obligation to prove genuine use of those marks.”

On April 10, multinational corporation 3M filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement claims  against N95 respirator distributor Performance Supply, LLC, in the Southern District of New York. Central to 3M’s suit is the company’s desire to eliminate what it calls a false and deceptive price-gouging scheme being perpetrated by entities operating outside of 3M’s authorized supply chain and taking advantage of increased respirator demand caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

Recent case law demonstrates that judicial bodies in the European Union and Russia have taken the stance that cannabis signs and slogans are not acceptable as trademarks as they are contrary to public interest. While the EU Courts are likely to evolve more rapidly on this issue in the near future, for now the position in both the EU and Russia is clear. The interests of the business community must be protected by governments in all countries, and business initiatives should be welcomed. But when weighing the physical and mental health of society on the one hand and business interests on the other, the priority must be the former.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has provided reassurance to European trademark owners in its judgment today in the SkyKick case. (Case C?371/18 Sky plc, Sky International AG, Sky UK Limited v SkyKick UK Limited, SkyKick Inc.) The case involves questions referred from the UK in a dispute over SkyKick’s alleged infringement of five of Sky’s EU and UK national trademarks. Sky is a well-known broadcaster and telecoms services provider, and SkyKick is a cloud services provider. The Court stated that “a lack of clarity and precision of the terms designating the goods or services covered by a trade mark registration cannot be considered contrary to public policy, within the meaning of those provisions” and that therefore the lack of clarity and precision in a specification is not a ground for invalidity: “a Community trade mark or a national trade mark cannot be declared wholly or partially invalid on the ground that terms used to designate the goods and services in respect of which that trade mark was registered lack clarity and precision.”

U.S.-based online outdoor goods retailer, Backcountry.com, has faced a significant social media backlash over the past month, with both customers and competitors publicly reacting to its aggressive trademark enforcement campaign. It all started when news broke that the brand had taken action against a huge number of smaller companies that happened to use the term “backcountry” in their names. Public documents revealed that Backcountry.com had been attempting to cancel trademarks against businesses using the term, filing lawsuits against a multitude of smaller companies over the past two years. The impact was far ranging, with disputed trademarks, product and business names including American Backcountry, Backcountry Babes, Marquette Backcountry Skis, Backcountry Denim Co., Backcountry Nitro, Cripple Creek Backcountry and many more.