<em> Tribe of Two, LLC v. Vidal </em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Tribe of Two, LLC v. Eritaj Design Corporation dismissing Tribe of Two’s opposition to Eritaj’s Trademark.
Redefining GI Distinctiveness to Aid Consumer Protections and Cultural Cooperation
This blog aims to address current issues facing foreign Geographical Indicator (GI) trademark recognition by the USPTO. It also seeks to explain why the USPTO should adopt a wider stance and recognize foreign GI marks more readily.
<em>Galperti, Inc. v. Galperti S.r.l.</em>
The Federal Circuit vacated the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s dismissal of Galperti Inc.’s fraud charge against Galperti S.r.l., because Galperti Inc. did not need to establish secondary meaning or privity in demonstrating their competitors’ claim’s falsity.
<em>Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd.</em>
The Federal Circuit ruled that the TTAB failed to properly weigh the conceptual and commercial strength of a mark by not considering third-party registrations and by placing the burden to establish non-use on the applicant.
Bolstering Brand Association: Preventing Loss of Trademarks to Genericization
One major concern with successful trademark use, especially in the social media age, is that trademark protections will diminish due to genericization, which is common usage of a mark by the public that is unassociated with the brand. By taking protective measures, including early trademark enforcement and carefully-worded advertising, companies can mitigate and manage risk associated with trademark genericization.
It’s Barbie’s World. Burberry’s Just Living in It.
Burberry and Mattel, maker of Barbie, recently settled a U.S. trademark dispute arising from Burberry’s application for registration of the mark “BRBY”, as Mattel withdraws its Opposition Notice and Burberry’s abandons its registration application.
Crossroads Between Free Speech and Trademarks
Over the summer, the Supreme Court announced it will take up a trademark case to determine whether the application of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act to political figures is violative of the First Amendment.
Dunkin’ v. Vapin
Dunkin filed a suit against an e-cigarette company’ for infringing Dunkin’s trademark. Dunkin’ asserts that the e-cigarette company “Vapin” essentially took Dunkin’s style and color from their trademark and replaced the word “Dunkin’” to “Vapin.” This case has the potential to help show a clear case of what the likelihood of confusion analysis of trademark infringement looks like.