Blog

Plaintiff had sought $30 million in fees, but “oversized staffing of trial teams leads inevitably to substantial inefficiencies that in turn generate fees far beyond what is reasonably necessary.” Accordingly, the Court reduced the requested fees “by 30 percent for an unreasonable number of hours billed and by a further 10 percent for failing to provide sufficient descriptive information to the Court, for a total of a 40 percent reduction.”

while MERCI is not conceptually weak under the sixth DuPont factor, the common use of “thank you” in connection with chocolate supports that the meaning of the mark MERCI is conceptually weak under the thirteenth DuPont factor.

The TTAB found that the proposed marks FREE PHOTOS and FREEPHOTOS would be understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to a key aspect of printing services such that the proposed marks are generic. 

The Seventh Circuit found that Little Caesars' consumer survey data, dictionary definitions, and third-party trademark registrations showing generic usage of "pizza puff" were sufficient to overcome the presumption of trademark validity for PIZZA PUFF which Iltaco failed to rebut for purposes of showing a likelihood of success on the merits at trial for a preliminary injunction. 

For BLACK SWAN vodka, even though the TTAB had previously found that vodka and wine were not related over fifteen years earlier in White Rock Distilleries, the TTAB found that vodka and wine were related based on a different evidentiary record showing "that wines and vodka are used together in several mixed-drink beverages."

use of the term "trademarking" as a verb denotes a lay person rather than a trademark expert

NEXT does exactly what we have said a trade secret plaintiff cannot do: it points to broad areas of software technology and asks us to sort out what aspects of that technology may or may not meet the statutory requirements for protection. But the onus is on NEXT to identify concrete secrets.

SurfaceQuest allegedly marketed its products with photographs of Kesters’s competing product

The TTAB recently noted that there is no authority to support the application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents “for purposes of using third-party registrations containing the English equivalent of an allegedly weak foreign term.”

preliminary injunction against advertisements about the horsepower of garbage disposals because the advertisements did not reflect the output power of the disposals’ motor, even though they did accurately reflect the electrical power drawn by its units. InSinkErator, LLC v. Joneca Co., No. 25-286, 2025 WL 3751867, __ F4th __ (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2025).

Applicant's own use of the mark indicated that that the LAUNDRY CEO forum is directed to entrepreneurship and being a laundry owner and operator. For example, applicant's website at Laundryceo.com states: “The Laundry CEO Forum is … designed for laundry business owners/operators, and industry professionals who desire to grow their profits and gain more customers.” The goods and services for the ‘LAUNDRY CEO' trademark application were identified as being in the business field without limitation, the identification must be presumed to include the laundry business.

The Federal Circuit affirmed UNIP’s priority claim based on its later-acquired common law rights in the MORE THAN AN ATHLETE mark during litigation. Indeed, “the motivation for a sale is irrelevant and senior user status may be properly achieved by assignment in anticipation or in the midst of litigation.” 

While KAHWA is the name of a specific type of traditional Kashmiri green tea from Central Asia, there was “no record evidence of any café or coffee shop in the United States ever selling kahwa, a specific type of Kashmiri green tea.” 

While the specification teaches various criteria “may be relevant to the analysis of which nodes or routes are best, but it does not explain which factors ought to be considered or how to balance them.” Citing Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1373, the Court held that this did not provide “a reasonably clear and exclusive definition” of “optimal” or “best,” emphasizing the need for the measure to be “exclusive.” 

How can plaintiffs plead, discover, and prove whether a trade secret has been misappropriated without giving away the trade secret? On the other hand, how can defendants respond to discovery without giving away their own trade secrets? Requiring too much disclosure too early could encourage fishing expeditions. Requiring too little disclosure too late could prevent the parties from proving or defending their claims.

In Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, No. 2024-1466, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2025), the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s holding of indefiniteness, and instead held that an obvious claim error may be corrected by a court through claim construction where the error is evident on the face of the patent and only one reasonable correction exists. 

in an ex parte appeal involving a trademark application and the time for filing a request for reconsideration has lapsed, the only way to make a new video of record is to file a written request to the TTAB for remand with a showing of good cause prior to the deadline for filing an applicant's main appeal brief

While Applicant’s DRAGONSLAYER mark is nearly identical to the component term “DRAGON SLAYERS” in the registered mark, the TTAB also found that registered mark is “a much busier mark.” 

the specification consistently indicates that claim 1’s “outer frame” is a “self-expanding frame.”

the prosecution history for a subsequent continuation application can apply to the claims of an already issued patent that is related as part of the same patent family

Zesty Paws had argued that its “#1 Claims” had compared the Zesty Paws brand to only the individual brands of pet supplements that Nutramax sells.

reducing a jury award of $10 million for patent infringement to nominal damages of $1 was affirmed because “the jury received insufficient evidence from which it could apportion the lump sum payment in the [allegedly comparable multi-patent] license or otherwise reasonably infer a reasonable royalty award for infringement of the [patent-in-suit] alone.” 

TTAB dismissed an opposition to the applied-for mark MANE ESTEEM for hair care products and hair salon services, based on the registered mark MANE 'N TAIL for hair care products for humans and domestic animals, because of the weakness of the term "MANE" and the dissimilarities in the marks at issue

The Federal Circuit found that the TTAB's “analysis was legally flawed.” Because the TTAB had found that “banking and financing services” and “credit card services” were “highly similar” for the second DuPont factor, excluding third-party uses related to banking and financing services other than credit card services “was an error.”

“there is no correct pronunciation of a trademark, and consumers may pronounce a mark differently than intended by the brand owner.”