The Briefing: Shedding Light on ‘Willful Blindness’: Brandy Melville v Redbubble
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Willful Patent Infringement: Understanding and Preparing for Claims
JONES DAY TALKS®: 75 Years of the Lanham Act and Changes in U.S. Trademark Law
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Lontex Corp. v. Nike, Inc., 107 F.4th 139 (3d Cir. 2024) - On July 10, 2024, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s decision to award attorneys’ fees to plaintiff Lontex, a sports apparel brand whose...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated an award of attorneys’ fees for reanalysis, explaining that the district court’s finding that the case was “exceptional” under the Lanham Act was based on policy...more
We have discussed New York-based lighting and furniture designer and manufacturer Hudson Furniture, Inc. in a previous post. While that case has since been terminated, Hudson recently won summary judgment—a finding that...more
In the case of Brandy Melville v Redbubble, a three judge appellate panel explored whether an owner of an online market place is liable for contributory trademark infringement. Scott Hervey and Jamie Lincenberg discuss this...more
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act does not apply to infringing use of a trademark outside of the United States. In doing so, the Court overturned a damages award of over $90 million associated with...more
On March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in Abitron Austria GmbH, et al. (“Abitron et al.”) v. Hetronic International, Inc. (“Hetronic”) on an issue it has not squarely addressed in seven...more
The United States Supreme Court has a new opportunity to look at whether a U.S. trademark owner can recover damages for infringing uses of the owner’s mark occurring outside the United States....more
Kim Kardashian has been hit with a lawsuit by New York-based Beauty Concepts LLC over Kardashian’s recently launched skincare line, “SKKN by Kim.” Beauty Concepts filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York against...more
On March 25, 2022, after a contentious, four year-long court battle, a jury awarded Stone Brewing Co. $56 million in damages against beer conglomerate MillerCoors, now Molson Coors, finding that MillerCoors infringed the...more
Just over five years after the California-based retail giant Deckers Outdoor Corp. (Deckers) filed a lawsuit against Sydney-based footwear company, Australian Leather Pty Ltd (Australian Leather) for trademark infringement,...more
In a recent precedential opinion, Kars 4 Kids Inc. v. America Can!, __ F.4th __ (3d Cir. 2021) (publication pending), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a $10.6 million trademark infringement...more
In its unanimous April 23, 2020 opinion in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil, Inc., the Supreme Court made clear once and for all that a successful trademark plaintiff is not required to establish that the defendant’s infringement...more
Signed into law in July of 1946, the Lanham Act has, for 75 years, governed U.S. trademark, servicemark, and unfair competition matters. In this edition of the Jones Day Talks Women in IP series, Meredith Wilkes, Anna Raimer,...more
A long-running battle between Deckers Outdoor Corp., the makers of UGG boots, and Australian Leather PTY Ltd. may finally be over after a May 7 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The battle...more
Trademark law aficianados have followed the progress of Romag Fasteners v. Fossil from District Court to the Federal Circuit to the Supreme Court and back again. We previously blogged about the Supreme Court decision here. In...more
2020 was a busy year for trademark litigation, with three U.S. Supreme Court decisions and several high-profile lower court cases involving trademark law. But many folks are understandably eager to put 2020 in the rearview...more
Jones Day's Meredith Wilkes and Anna Raimer discuss 2020's most significant developments in trademark law and preview what's to come in 2021, including possible progress in Washington on the highly anticipated Trademark...more
Nearly a year ago, we previewed the U.S. Supreme Court’s then-upcoming decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc.—a case set to provide some much needed clarity on the question of whether plaintiffs in trademark...more
The Second Circuit vacates Tiffany's summary judgment win over Costco and remands for a trial over the use of the word "Tiffany" in advertising for engagement rings. On August 17, 2020, in Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale...more
The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on April 23, 2020, by unanimously holding in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., et al. that a brand owner is not required to prove that a trademark infringer acted...more
In April 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that trademark infringers can be required to hand over their profits to a brand owner even if their conduct was not “willful.” The case was Romag Fasteners v. Fossil Group, Inc.,...more
In U.S. trademark litigation, the focus is typically on injunctive relief: The plaintiff wants the defendant to cease use of the infringing mark before the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed or the strength of the mark is...more
Major Research Universities Agree to Technology Access Framework Amid COVID-19 Pandemic - A growing number of major universities, including Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, Yale...more
On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Lanham Act does not require a showing of willful infringement to justify an award of defendant’s profits to the plaintiff. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v....more
In a recent unanimous decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court brought some welcome clarity to the question of whether willfulness is required in order to recover an infringer’s profits under...more