Skip to main content
Category

All

Trademark Bulletin May 2019

By All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Publications, Trademark Bulletins

Fashion Law Scotus Case: Trademarks and Continuing Infringements

Dunnington trademark team members Olivera Medenica, Raymond J. Dowd and Sixtine Bousquet-Lambert recently authored a Supreme Court brief on a trademark issue pertinent to the fashion industry. On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to grant a petition for certiorari filed by Lucky Brand Dungarees in Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., et al., v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. Dunnington represents respondent Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. who is opposing the petition. At issue in the case is whether, in an action to enforce a trademark infringement judgment, a defendant who continues with the exact same infringements can collaterally attack a prior judgment with a defense that it raised in that prior action but deliberately chose not to prosecute.

You can read more about the case here. Read More

New Alliance with South American Firm

By All, Featured, Firm News, Latin America Desk

Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller has signed a collaboration agreement with Alumbra Asesores, continuing its expansion into the Latin America Market!

Alumbra Asesores is a Colombian firm with offices in Barranquilla and Bogotá, as well as a strategic alliance in San Sebastian, Spain. They are highly recognized for their advice and litigation, as well as for their success in setting up business projects. Read More

Trademark Bulletin April 2019

By All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Publications, Trademark Bulletins

FUCT Fashion Label Takes its ‘Scandalous’ Trademark Case to Supreme Court

On Monday, April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Read More

Trademark Bulletin March 2019

By All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Publications, Trademark Bulletins

SDNY District Court Rejects Laurel Road’s Trade Dress Suit Against CommonBond

On August 27, 2018, Laurel Road Bank sued competitor CommonBond, Inc. over the latter’s display of an advertisement for its student loan financing services, alleging that CommonBond’s advertisement infringed and diluted the trade dress of Laurel Road’s advertisements of its own student loan refinancing services. Read More

How to Import Alcohol into the U.S.

By All, Corporate, Featured, International, Publications

Robert N. Swetnick, Partner
Carolina Pineda Martinez, Special Counsel

June 20, 2019

There are multiple considerations to take into account when importing alcohol into the U.S., many of which may become a major pitfall if not addressed in due time. In this article we will explain how to import alcohol into the U.S. so that the process can be seamless and you may start your business as soon as possible! Read More

Trademark Bulletin February 2019

By All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Publications, Trademark Bulletins

BIC Files ITC Complaint Against Importers of Allegedly Counterfeit Pocket Lighters

On December 6, 2018, BIC Corporation (“BIC”) petitioned the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) for an investigation into the illicit importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale after importation of six respondents’ pocket lighters, alleging that respondents’ lighters infringe BIC’s intellectual property rights in the design of its disposable cigarette lighters, otherwise known as their “trade dress.” In its petition, BIC argues that similarities in the appearance of respondents’ lighters and its lighters will lead consumers to be confused as to the source and/or sponsorship of respondents’ lighters, or to affiliate respondents’ lighters with BIC.  BIC’s petition asks the ITC to issue a general exclusion order blocking the importation of infringing lighters from any source, not just the named respondents, and claims that such an order “is necessary and appropriate to prevent circumvention of limited exclusion orders directed to products of Respondents.”

Read More