This month we discuss Baby Shark(s), increasing fees, why you shouldn’t lie to the USPTO and more… Read More
This month we discuss wine, sweets, ‘Tiffany’ rings … and theft of trademarks? Read More
Remembering Rep. John Lewis, Who For Years Stood With Native American Peoples in Opposing Washington’s “Redskins” Moniker
The late Rep. John Lewis stands among a handful of Civil Rights juggernauts whose actions and sacrifices shaped the history of racial justice in this country. Recognized as an aide and close associate of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Lewis is perhaps best known as an organizer of several peaceful protests in support of racial equality during the Jim Crow Era, including several “Freedom Rides” through the American South in 1961, the 1963 March on Washington and the 1965 Montgomery-to-Selma marches.
Healthvana Sues “As Seen On TV” Company Over Hand Sanitizer
On Tuesday, May 12, 2020, digital healthcare start up Healthvana, Inc. sued Telebrands Corp., the company credited as the pioneer of “As Seen on TV” ads, in a California district court, claiming that it was damaged as a result of Telebrands’ unauthorized use of the registered trademark Healthvana to sell overpriced hand sanitizer. Read More
USPTO Releases Revised Examination Guide Following Backlash
On September 6, 2019, the USPTO released a revised examination guide to clarify the controversial amendment to Rule 2.11, which requires all foreign domiciled trademark applicants, registrants, or parties of a trademark proceeding to obtain representation from a U.S. licensed attorney in order to complete the trademark application process. The release of the revised examination guide, which provides practical information related to the rule, comes after the USPTO received many requests to elaborate on certain provisions in the unprecedented amendment. A brief summary of the new requirement can be found in our client alert here. Read More
Federal Court Affirms Luxury Eyewear Manufacturer’s $1.9M Win Over Flea Market
On August 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the ruling of a Georgia jury awarding $1.9 million to Luxottica finding the landlord of an indoor flea market in Georgia liable for contributory trademark infringement when the landlord had “constructive” knowledge of the subtenants’ sale of counterfeit eyewear, including knockoffs of Ray-Ban and Oakley brands. Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Finds USPTO’s Bar on Offensive Trademarks Unconstitutional
On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 vote that a federal law banning the registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment. In Iancu v. Brunetti, the court found in favor of Eric Brunetti, a Los Angeles streetwear designer who attempted to register the name of his 30-year-old brand, FUCT. Read More
Iron Maiden Sues ‘Ion Maiden’ Video Game Creators
On May 28, the English heavy metal band, Iron Maiden, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Danish video game developer 3D Realms Entertainment (“3D Realms”) over the video game named “Ion Maiden.” Read More
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.
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