The Briefing: The Supreme Court Limits the Reach of The Lanham Act
The U.S. Trademark Use Requirement and Associated Risks and Strategies for Chinese Applicants
Issuing a revised opinion following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that none of the defendant’s purely foreign sales...more
On June 29, 2023, in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act does not have an extraterritorial scope and applies only in cases where the alleged infringing “use...more
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the petitioner in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International Inc. However, the justices were divided 5-4 as to the precise reasoning and what facts...more
In a highly anticipated decision, the Federal Court of Appeal recently held that a trademark owner could demonstrate “use” of a trademark in Canada in association with “hotel services” in the absence of a brick-and-mortar...more
Before Newman, Linn, and Dyk. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Summary: The Trademark Act’s definition of “use in commerce” as a requirement for obtaining a federal trademark does...more
There were many interesting trademark cases coming out of 2018, a few of which are discussed below. The scope of Canada’s anti-dilution remedy (section 22 of the Trademarks Act) is not limited to a defendant’s use of a...more
Recent federal court decisions, and a pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit, highlight disagreement among the courts as to the scope of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) anti-fraud and anti-manipulation...more
Non-Canadian hoteliers have reason for celebration following the release of the Federal Court of Canada’s anticipated decision in Hilton Worldwide Holding LLP v Miller Thomson LLP, 2018 FC 895 (Hilton Worldwide)....more
Non-Canadian retailers can breathe a sigh of relief thanks to the Federal Court of Canada’s decision in Dollar General Corporation v 2900319 Canada Inc, 2018 FC 778 (“Dollar General”). The decision reaffirms the Court’s...more
In 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected shoe manufacturer Adidas’s application to trademark the phrase “ADIZERO,” due to a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark: “ADD A ZERO,” a clothing trademark held...more
Late last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined a court had jurisdiction to decide a trademark lawsuit filed by a U.S. grocery store against a Canadian reseller where the products at issue were only...more
The Redskins Lose Again (Off the Field)- A federal District Court affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) ruling that “Redskins” cannot be registered as a trademark for use in connection with a...more
In its June 18, 2014 Blackhorse decision, the TTAB ordered six Redskins trademarks to be cancelled as disparaging to Native Americans at the time they were registered....more
Addressing for the first time whether the offering of a service was sufficient “use in commerce” under the Lanham Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB)...more
On March 2, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its first-ever ruling addressing use requirements for registering service marks. The court held that offering a service, without the actual rendering...more