Tag: Trademark

1
Trademark infringement case update: Lucky Brands Dungarees v Marcel Fashion Group
2
New USPTO Requirement: Mandatory Electronic Trademark Submissions and Physical Addresses
3
‘High’ expectations for Cannabis trade mark ‘hash’ed – Is EU trade mark law ready for Cannabis(TM)?
4
UKIPO knocks undefeated Reds off their perch – The LIVERPOOL trade mark and lessons for brand owners
5
The Claridge’s Affair: A win, but at what cost?
6
The Scotch Whisky Saga: Where Name and Reputation is not enough
7
Beauty and the Beast – A tale of (trade mark infringement) as old as time
8
U.S. Supreme Court strikes down ban on “immoral” or “scandalous” trademark registrations
9
“Three stripes and you’re out!” – The EU General Court rules Adidas’ three stripe trade mark invalid
10
A figurative mark? A position mark? Or just a trade mark?

Trademark infringement case update: Lucky Brands Dungarees v Marcel Fashion Group

A nearly 20-year dispute between two competitors in the apparel industry will be heard by the Supreme Court Monday January 13, 2020, on the legal issue of claim preclusion – highlighting the practical pitfalls of releasing trademark infringement claims in settlement agreement between parties that continue to use the marks at issue. The case is Lucky Brands Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group, Inc., Case No. 18-1086.

The practical lessons to draw from this dispute are numerous:

  1. the importance of initially clearing marks and implementing a plan to handle potential third party objections
  2. strategic enforcement as to when, and against whom, to enforce trademark rights – and squarely on point with this nearly 20 year battle now before the Supreme Court
  3. careful drafting of what claims are released in the context of future use of the same or similar trademarks.
Read More

New USPTO Requirement: Mandatory Electronic Trademark Submissions and Physical Addresses

On Tuesday July 31, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued new Rules and Regulations under Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 2, and 7. They were to take effect on December 21, 2019, but will now take effect of February 15, 2020.

The impact of the rule, as implemented, is a new requirement for all trademark applicants and registrants to:

  1. electronically file trademark applications, subsequent documents concerning trademark applications, and documents regarding registrations;
  2. provide and maintain a working e-mail address for receiving correspondence from the USPTO for each trademark application and registration; and
  3. provide and maintain an accurate domicile address as a backup for the USPTO to contact if an e-mail correspondence address fails to work.
Read More

‘High’ expectations for Cannabis trade mark ‘hash’ed – Is EU trade mark law ready for Cannabis(TM)?

The EU General Court has rejected a trade mark application which featured the word ‘Cannabis’ together with images of cannabis leaves as it was contrary to public policy.

Read More

UKIPO knocks undefeated Reds off their perch – The LIVERPOOL trade mark and lessons for brand owners

To the interest of many a scouser and football fan alike, Liverpool Football Club’s attempt to register as a UK trademark LIVERPOOL has been rejected by the UKIPO on the grounds that the word is of “geographical significance” to the city. Liverpool FC had filed its application in regards to various goods in relation to football and the filing had attracted significant public attention.

Other English football clubs (Everton, Chelsea and Tottenham) have managed to register several trade marks for each of their respective area names. In addition Southampton Football Club has managed to register SOUTHAMPTON as an EU trade mark. As a result, it is not surprising that Liverpool FC would seek to register a similar mark to help protect its valuable brand.

However, as a result of the filing the club received significant backlash from the people of Liverpool, including their own supporters, and – probably in a related move – Liverpool FC has said that it does not plan to appeal the refusal and it has withdrawn the application. An additional trade mark application for LIVERPOOL with different claims has also been withdrawn.

The matter presents a great case study for brand owners on balancing the need to protect their brand whilst being considerate of the potential adverse PR that will come with the application for certain trade marks.

Read More

The Claridge’s Affair: A win, but at what cost?

Claridge’s Hotel Limited (Claridge’s) recently succeeded in challenging in IPEC the use of the CLARIDGE name by Claridge Candles Limited (Claridge Candles) – a small one-person business.

However, the success came at with a cost for the world renowned hotel as in doing so it lost one trade mark registration entirely and had a second mark reduced in scope due to a non-use counterclaim, highlighting one of the risks of instituting trade mark infringement action.

Read More

The Scotch Whisky Saga: Where Name and Reputation is not enough

William Grant & Sons, the distiller, blender and owner of Glenfiddich, the independent whisky company which markets itself as the “World’s Most Awarded Single Malt Scotch Whisky”, was unsuccessful in its recent opposition of Glenfield’s label trade mark application.

Back in 2018, Mumbai-based business man Vivek Anasane filed a trade mark application for the label of his ‘Glenfield’ Scotch whisky in an attempt to expand his drinks company into the UK. This was quickly opposed by William Grant & Sons who argued that the Glenfield mark was “visually and phonetically highly similar” to the Glenfiddich word mark.

Read More

Beauty and the Beast – A tale of (trade mark infringement) as old as time

IPEC has ruled over the recent dispute between Beauty Bay (claimant) and Benefit Cosmetics (defendant) which arose after Benefit sold a Christmas gift set contained in a globe shaped box displaying the words “Beauty and the Bay”. The gift set was part of a 13 product collection celebrating 50 years since the Summer of Love and the company’s San Francisco heritage which included products like “Glam Francisco”, “I Left my Heart in Tan Francisco” and “B.Right by the Bay”.

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down ban on “immoral” or “scandalous” trademark registrations

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Iancu v. Brunetti that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment. The holding was in favor of Respondent Erik Brunetti, who had been denied a trademark registration for “FUCT” in connection with various clothing items.

Read More

“Three stripes and you’re out!” – The EU General Court rules Adidas’ three stripe trade mark invalid

On 19 June 2019, the EU General decided a case about the validity of Adidas’ EU trade mark registration for three stripes. In the General Court’s decision (see here), the Court upheld the invalidity of the mark on the basis that: (i) the mark wasn’t used consistently and evidence of reversed/amended versions of the mark was inadmissible; and (ii) Adidas failed to show acquired distinctiveness across the EU, providing admissible evidence for only five EU Member States.

Read More

A figurative mark? A position mark? Or just a trade mark?

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently confirmed that when assessing the actual use of a mark and the scope of protection afforded by a trade mark, the defining factor is the way in which it is perceived, and it is irrelevant that it is classified as a figurative or a position mark. In the CJEU’s decision in ECLI:EU:C:2019:471, the CJEU rejected German shoemaker Deichmann’s appeal to have Spanish competitor Munich SL’s trade mark revoked. The case revolves around the registered mark below, depicting a solid line cross on the side of a dotted outline of a shoe.

Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.