Blog

Ocean Blue’s act of selling the product on Amazon did not impliedly represent anything about the identity of the party selling the product to Ocean Blue or of that seller’s contractual responsibilities to the manufacturer of the supplements. Because there was no allegation that a misleading statement was made to consumers by Ocean Blue because it omitted material information, there wsa no false statement to consumers, literal or implied.

On appeal to the Eastern District of Viginia, however, Apple submitted new evidence, including four expert reports, that led the district court to a different conclusion from the TTAB, namely that the REALITY COMPOSER and REALITY CONVERTER marks instead "are both suggestive and have acquired secondary meaning." 

In Sazerac Brands, LLC v. Buffalo City Distillery, LLC, Cancellation No. 92079064 (TTAB July 31, 2025), the TTAB found that “alcoholic beverages except beers; distilled spirits” for the BUFFALO CITY trademark registration subject to cancellation was broad enough to encompass “bourbon” identified as the goods for the asserted BUFFALO TRACE trademark registration.

Having "culled all such references from the common specification," neither “stable” nor “stability,” nor any variation thereof, appear anywhere in the common specification. The non-provisional patent applications that matured into the asserted patents did not simply carry over and maintain the same specification from the earlier-filed provisional application.

NFTs are "goods" protectable by trademark law under the Lanham Act. Yuga Labs, LLC v. Ryder Ripps, No. 24-879, 2025 WL 2056060 (9th Cir. July 23, 2025). 

Recreating an animated version of a West Hollywood bar with references to drag queens and cocktails is artistically relevant to the plot and social commentary of Q-Force. The alleged use of Vox’s likeness is an artistic choice that supports the show’s theme and geographic setting, and as discussed above, grounds the scene in a sense of realism. 

Having presented an alternate non-patent ground for the requested recoupment remedy, the asserted patent-law issue thus was not “necessarily raised.”

The word “the” often plays little to no importance for purposes of distinguishing otherwise similar trademarks; but this proposition “is not universally true.”

the Federal Circuit found that the TTAB had "overly focused on the lips image shown in some of the [KIST] marketing materials" because lips image is not part of the KIST mark, and "not all the marketing materials with the KIST mark include a lips image."

Consumers understand that a widely used, commonplace phrase as conveying the ordinary concept or sentiment normally associated with it, rather than serving any source-indicating function.

a single instance of actual confusion could be bolstered by accompanying testimony suggesting that it was not an isolated instance, and could be “illustrative of how and why confusion is likely” in that it shows that the consumer became confused as to the source of the parties’ goods based on the marks

The online articles in the record may show that ghostwriting occurs in these broad creative fields, but they do not show that it is so prevalent and so publicized that the consuming public, encountering Applicant’s mark, would almost instantaneously take it as describing a key attribute of Applicant’s services.

Eighteen years of use since 2006 with sales of the product resulting in $1.61 million in annual revenue was found to be insufficient in this case to establish acquired distinctiveness. The TTAB stated that "[b]ecause the applied-for mark in this case is a product configuration, which consumers may appreciate for its utility or appearance rather than its putative indication of source, a showing of five or more years' use is insufficient,"

The Sixth Circuit held that Tammy was bound by the California probate court's prior decision that the copyrights, including for “Que Sera, Sera,” were owned by Jay Livingston Music, because of claim preclusion. Therefore, Travilyn could terminate those prior copyright assignments to Jay Livingston Music. 

The Federal Circuit held that "unless it is unlikely that the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate the word into its English equivalent, the doctrine of foreign equivalents applies"; and affirmed that the term "vestements" was a common French word for clothing, and, as translated under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, the applied-for stylized VESTEMENTS mark for various clothing items was not registerable as generic because the word "clothing" is incapable of indicating source. 

The test turns on whether the copying of the original communicates a message that differs from the message of the original – not whether the copier separately declares such a message. . . . Neither Campbell nor Warhol (nor any other precedential opinion discussing transformativeness) stated or implied that a copying would be deemed transformative, favoring a finding of fair use, merely because the copier, separate from the act of copying, asserted a fact about the original not asserted by it. . . . . Notwithstanding what Defendant said about Plaintiff’s image, its unauthorized copying and distribution of the image communicated no message other than what the original image communicated.

The term “Ivy League” was coined in the 1930s by a sportswriter to collectively refer to Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, and Yale University (collectively, the “Member Institutions"). In 1945, the Member Institutions formally adopted “The Ivy League” ...

the dictionary definition of SYCAMORE – a very large spreading tree – indicates the term is likely used by so many in connection with tax and financial services because it conveys the concept of a strong financial strategy and growing wealth.

[D]escribing “the results of the operation of an unspecified algorithm” is not sufficient to transform the disclosure of a general-purpose computer into the disclosure of sufficient structure to satisfy § 112 ¶ 6. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Without an algorithm to achieve these functionalities—and, more generally, given the specifications’ failure to disclose adequate corresponding structure—we hold the payment-handler terms indefinite. 

The unique spelling of “Casablanca” as COUSABLANCA when used in connection with restaurants services results in a clever double entendre. The primary connotation and commercial impression reflect that of a restaurant specializing in Moroccan dishes serving couscous from Casablanca. Thus, Applicant’s mark has its own unique humorous play on words that projects a separate meaning and commercial impression distinct from the film. As a result, when confronted with both marks, prospective consumers are unlikely to assume that Applicant’s and Registrant’s respective goods originate from the same source.

Here, the genus of goods was defined as “chloroprene medical examination gloves” (Medisafe had sought to limit the goods to gloves sold only to authorized resellers, but the Board was not compelled to accept that limitation to the genus); and the Federal Circuit found there was substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that Medisafe's color mark is so common in the chloroprene medical examination glove industry that it cannot identify a single source and is, therefore, generic. This evidence included screenshots of third-party websites showing unaffiliated sellers of chloroprene/neoprene medical examination gloves in the same or nearly the same dark green color as in the proposed mark. 

Professor Eric Goldman did not care for the term "advisal" and expressed concern that it will propagate and create "even more nomenclature confusion to a legal area already riddled with confusing and misunderstood jargon." Nonetheless, his "takeaways" from the Godun case were that: (1) Courts will pixel-police the formation screens in great detail; (2) They will make all inferences regarding TOS formation against the drafter; and (3) If you want to avoid the first two points, use a two-click process (a “clickwrap”).

if the senior user fails to prove acquired distinctiveness of its otherwise descriptive trademark, then it would not defeat the registration of a subseqent trademark adopted by a junior user

The court held that a statement about whether a product is discontinued or not does not qualify as a “characteristic of the good itself” or an “inherent or material quality of the product,”

while the plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the sale of stolen property might well state a claim for conversion or some other tort, such claims, without more, do not fall within the Lanham Act’s purview. The plaintiffs’ claims for trademark infringement and false designation of origin therefore are dismissed.