Blog

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. 

The zone of natural expansion thus only allows a senior user to prevent junior users from registering similar marks on related lines of goods, but does not confer the senior user a proactive right to register a mark.

consumers will immediately understand the cited BREW HAHA marks to be clever plays-on-words meaning BROUHAHA

Notwithstanding that the contours of Colorado's cause of action for misappropriation of business value are not well-defined; to prove such a claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant appropriated a product of plaintiff’s expenditure of labor, skill, and money.

No reasonable consumer would conclude that a product contains artificial ingredients merely because it is produced “in industrial factories” using “synthetic processes.” Indeed, that is the way most consumer goods are produced.

The issue of the appropriate time period for assessing whether a trademark was generic such that it could not be registered in the first instance was an issue of first impression for the Federal Circuit in Sazerac Brands, LLC v. Bullshine Distillery

"Waves" as the fictional team name was artistically relevant because it “was chosen as a nod to the real-life Lakers, whose team name also alludes to a body of water,” and evokes the Los Angeles area and the “Southern California ‘vibe,' associated with beaches, sun, surfing, and waves.” Furthermore, there was “no implicit, let alone explicit statement that misleads the consumer as to the source of the series.”

Applicant merely purchases the TAKDIS-branded goods from third-party suppliers. While Applicant represents that it repackages the goods in its own packaging, this packaging merely displays the TAKDIS mark that already appears on the goods as purchased from the third-party distributors, and this does not create ownership rights.

Finding "comedy-show services and restaurant services are related and complementary in nature," the TTAB concluded that this weighed in favor of finding of a likelihood of confusion.

As a result, we find that Applicant has established at best that the term COWBELL is somewhat weak.

the Second Circuit's "requirement that a plaintiff articulate precisely the features of its trade dress at the pleading stage does not also require plaintiffs to articulate the distinctiveness of that trade dress." 

TTAB sustained an opposition to the registration of the mark GIGI DIOR for “Entertainment services, namely, personal appearances by a porn star; Entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring non-downloadable adult-themed photographs and videos," on the ground of dilution by blurring the famous mark DIOR

The record in Metabeauty included evidence of ten registrations by third parties that were found to be probative of conceptual weakness of the number 12 and TWELVE. Spireon, 71 F.4th at 1363-4 (third-party composite marks relevant to show common segment weak).

Many courts have adopted the so-called Rogers test under which a trademark infringement claim against an expressive work such as a movie may be dismissed early in a case on First Amendment grounds. See, e.g., Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 902 (9th Cir. 2002) (adopting test from...

The reverse doctrine of equivalents ("RDOE") in patent law has been described as an “anachronistic exception, long mentioned but rarely applied.” Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

An opposition plaintiff must demonstrate: (i) an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the opposition statute; and (ii) proximate causation. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U....

CeramTec manufactures artificial hip components used to replace damaged bone and cartilage in hip replacement procedures. The hip components are made from a zirconiatoughened alumina (“ZTA”) ceramic that contains, among other things, chromium oxide (chromia). The amount of chromia in the ZTA ceramic affects its coloring. The range of chromia claimed in CeramTec's patent can produce a variety of colors, one of which is pink.

In view of Opposer’s failure to submit proof of its alleged common law rights or its registration or applications, together with Applicant’s denials in its Answer of such allegations, we find that Opposer has failed to prove that it is statutorily entitled to bring this opposition proceeding.

TTAB found that, by not claiming any specific "guitar indicia" for the structure upon which the six beams of light are projected, that structure is not part of the mark, and cannot serve to inform consumers about what the mark means or represents. By "intentionally omitting" that physical structure, the beams of light shining skyward from an undefined structure would not be distinctive unless "presented with sufficient guitar indicia to allow consumers to make a connection between the beams of light and a guitar." 

"any confusion due to proximity or common reference to historical lore is not the type of confusion that trademark owners may prevent." US Ghost Adventures, LLC v. Miss Lizzie’s Coffee LLC, No. 23-2000, __ F.4th __ (1st Cir. Nov. 15, 2024). Ghost Adventures does not own the lore of Lizzie Borden, and Ghost Adventures' registration of the "Lizzie Borden" mark did not prohibit other businesses from marketing themselves by the use of Lizzie Borden's story. 

Misuse of the trademark registration symbol, however, could adversely affect the ability to register the mark with the USPTO or enforce the trademark against others, if an intent to deceive can be established. 

the court awarded only $940 in statutory damages, and denied attorneys' fees, because the "efforts [of Plaintiff’s counsel] led to what can only be described as a suboptimal, and yet predictable, result."