We recently wrote about the decision in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which overturned in part the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that the mark “Booking.com” is not registrable because the mark is generic. The route of the appeal continue reading...
In Phelan Holdings, Inc. v. Rare Hospitality Management, Inc., a federal court in the Middle District of Florida recently held that consumers were unlikely to be completely at sea when distinguishing between two trademarks for casual dining restaurants that begin with the phrase “You Can’t continue reading...
As the sun set on 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power, Co. embraced a new standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in Lanham Act cases. Adopting the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale in Octane Fitness, the 9th Circuit held continue reading...
The Sixth Circuit recently issued an opinion in NetJets Inc. v. IntelliJet Group, LLC Inc. (unpublished), holding that where a trademark registration is incontestable, it may not be cancelled on the ground that it was void ab initio due to failure to use the mark continue reading...
Assignment of an intent-to-use trademark application can be fraught with risk. To deter “trafficking” in ITU applications, Section 10 of the Lanham Act prohibits the assignment of an ITU application before an amendment to allege use has been filed unless the assignment is to a continue reading...
The Lanham Act prohibits registration on the Principal Register of a mark that is “primarily merely a surname” unless an applicant can show that the mark has acquired secondary meaning such that consumers perceive the surname as an identifier of source. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(4). Alternatively, continue reading...
Judge Rakoff is back at it in Classic Liquor Importers, Ltd. v. Spirits International, B.V. We previously blogged about the dangers inherent in sending a cease and desist letter without the concurrent appetite for litigation, a post that was prompted by Judge Rakoff’s denial of defendant continue reading...
An advertising slogan like “A Diamond is Forever” may be eternal, but the same cannot be said about some comparative advertising claims. If a company advertises its product as superior to a competitive product, the ad claim may need to be re-assessed and potentially modified continue reading...
In a previous post, we discussed Louis Vuitton’s unsuccessful lawsuit against My Other Bag, Inc., in which the “parody defense” was a key issue. Louis Vuitton is making trademark law news again – this time as a defendant/counterclaim plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit in continue reading...
What is the difference between an advertisement that is literally false by necessary implication and one that is impliedly false? It may seem like a fine (and somewhat opaque) distinction, but determining the particular way in which an advertising message is false can have a continue reading...
Jeffrey CadwellJeff advises clients on the availability, registrability, and stre...
Michael KeyesJ. Michael Keyes is an intellectual property attorney with exten...
Kaleb McNeelyAs a partner in the Trial Group, Kaleb practices primarily in the ...
Sarah RobertsonSarah has over fifteen years’ experience helping clients prot...
Fara SunderjiFara assists clients in the development and execution of all type...
Charlene KroghCharlene Krogh is a Partner in Dorsey’s top-ranked Tradem...
Evan EveristEvan is a partner in Dorsey’s Trademark, Copyright and Adverti...
