In a decision issued on June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a generic word combined with “.com,” such as Booking.com, is entitled to federal registration if consumers perceive the combined mark as a non-generic brand...more
7/1/2020
/ Acquired Distinctiveness ,
Appeals ,
Booking.com ,
Domain Name Registration ,
Domain Names ,
Generic Marks ,
Lanham Act ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademarks ,
United States Patent and Trademark Office v Booking.com BV ,
USPTO
Under Section 1117(a) of the Trademark Act, courts may award the plaintiff's lost profits or the defendant's profits resulting from a violation of the statute. The Supreme Court decided today that while a defendant's mental...more
4/23/2020
/ Appeals ,
Calculation of Damages ,
Certiorari ,
Disgorgement ,
Lanham Act ,
Romag Fasteners v Fossil ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
Willful Infringement
Last week, the TTAB agreed to vacate a precedential decision at the direction of a district court judge putting an end (for now) to a stand-off between the administrative body and the federal judiciary. As we have previously...more
On February 29, 2016, the Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit decision holding that there was no likelihood of confusion, and therefore no trademark infringement, where Amazon.com responded to consumer searches...more
Trademark owners and practitioners who took heart in the Supreme Court's seemingly confined holding that issue preclusion can but does not necessarily apply to likelihood of confusion determinations by the Trademark Trial and...more
9/4/2015
/ B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Judicial Review ,
Likelihood of Confusion ,
Popular ,
Right To Appeal ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks
On April 27, the Supreme Court surprisingly denied certiorari in Escamilla v. M2 Tech., Inc., U.S., No. 14-1012 rather than remanding the case for further consideration in light of the High Court's recent decision in B&B...more
Yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. et al., case number 13-352, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), holding that likelihood of confusion determinations by the...more
As reported in our September 23 Client Alert, the Supreme Court is set to hear argument on December 2 on the issue of whether likelihood of confusion findings by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) are entitled to...more
As we reported in our July 2 client alert, the Supreme Court has granted a petition for certiorari seeking a determination of whether likelihood of confusion findings by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") are...more
As we reported in our May 29 client alert, the Solicitor General submitted an amicus brief recommending that the Supreme Court grant a petition for certiorari seeking a determination of whether likelihood of confusion...more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the crucial issue of who has standing to sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Scalia, the Court held that to...more
In advising clients and making strategic decisions about whether to bring or defend inter partes proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), trademark practitioners need to consider carefully whether...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of Lexmark International Inc. ("Lexmark"). Lexmark sought cert to resolve a three-way split among the federal circuit courts regarding how to determine whether...more
Lanham Act false advertising law is largely consistent among the various federal circuit courts. However, one area of Lanham Act jurisprudence where the federal appellate courts do not see eye-to-eye concerns who has standing...more