The public legal dispute between luxury brand Chanel and luxury reseller What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA) continues with Chanel seeking a permanent injunction that WGACA argues is too broad. As previously reported, a New York jury previously awarded Chanel a US$4 million verdict against WGACA for sales of counterfeit Chanel-branded products Chanel, Inc. v. What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, et al., 1:18-cv-02253 (SDNY).
Read MoreThe Italian Supreme Court recently issued a decision addressing whether the Vespa shape, already protected under copyright, was precluded from registration as a 3D mark. According to the Court, a shape’s artistic value usually confers substantial value which prohibits trade mark registration under Italian law.
Read MoreIn January 2024, UNIQLO CO., LTD. (UNIQLO) announced that it had filed a lawsuit before the Tokyo District Court against Roadget Business Pte. Ltd., Fashion Choice Pte. Ltd., and SHEIN Japan Co., Ltd. (collectively, SHEIN Parties). UNIQLO alleges that the SHEIN Parties have infringed Japan’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act by selling dupes of UNIQLO’s popular round mini shoulder bag, which went viral on TikTok last year due to its minimalistic, water-repellent exterior and ability to hold a surprisingly large volume of products for its size. UNIQLO is demanding that the SHEIN parties cease selling the dupe bags and pay damages incurred as a result of sale of the SHEIN Parties’ dupe products.
Read MoreA New York federal jury sided in favor of Chanel on all of it claims against luxury reseller What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA), awarding Chanel US$4 million in statutory damages for sales of counterfeit Chanel-branded handbags. In Chanel, Inc. v. What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, et al., 1:18-cv-02253 (SDNY), WGACA was found liable for trademark infringement, false association and unfair competition, and false advertising claims. The jury further found that WGACA acted willfully, with reckless disregard, or with willful blindness.
Read MoreThe National Basketball Association (NBA) has lost the appeal of its invalidation action against a United Kingdom (UK) trade mark filed by Pizza Texas Bulls Inc (Pizza Bulls) in classes 30, 39, and 43 in NBA Properties Inc. v. Pizza Texas Bulls Inc [2023] EWHC 3040 (Ch). Interestingly, the NBA was successful in the European Union (EU) in relation to identical marks under Opposition No B3146352, and prevented the Pizza Bulls mark being registered in the EU.
Read MoreIn KFC THC V Ltd v. Grill’d IP Pty Ltd [2023] ATMO 192, KFC THC V Ltd (KFC) brought an opposition against the registration of the trade mark “HFC” filed by Grill’d IP Pty Ltd (Grill’d). KFC is a global chain of fast food restaurants otherwise known as Kentucky Fried Chicken. Grill’d is an Australian chain of burger restaurants which markets its food as a healthier, fresher alternative to the major fast food chains. The trade mark “HFC,” standing for “Healthy Fried Chicken,” is used by Grill’d for the fried chicken options on its menu.
Read MoreBusiness blooms for one trade mark owner as “FLOWERS FOR ALL” has been deemed distinctive enough to be registered as a trade mark in Australia.
Read MoreIn McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412, fast-food giant McDonald’s and Australian dinner-time rival Hungry Jack’s faced off in the Federal Court of Australia over their burger names BIG MAC vs BIG JACK and MEGA MAC vs MEGA JACK.
Read MoreCopyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.