A federal court in California dismissed Pepperdine University’s trademark suit against Netflix, holding that the fictional “Los Angeles Waves” basketball team in the Running Point series is protected artistic expression under the Rogers v. Grimaldi test.
A Northern District of California judge dismissed two of three trademark infringement claims against AI startup Glean Technologies, finding that the plaintiff’s own registrations showed later first-use dates than the defendant’s alleged first use, while preserving the oldest mark with 2019 priority.
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice held that the name of the James Bond character “Miss Moneypenny” does not enjoy independent work-title protection under § 5(1) and (3) German Trademark Act, because the fictional figure lacks the visual individuality and standalone fame required to be a work in its own right separate from the underlying James Bond film series.
A Pennsylvania federal court upheld a $28,000 jury verdict for Penn State in its long-running trademark suit against vintage-merch retailer Vintage Brand, treating initial interest confusion not as a standalone doctrine but as one way to satisfy the standard multi-factor confusion analysis.
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice dismissed Ferrari’s appeal challenging the “Testa Rossa” trademark, leaving in place the BPatG’s January 2025 ruling that bad-faith trademark applications under § 8(2) No. 10 MarkenG require objective evidence of damaging or obstructing intent — mere free-riding on a famous mark is not enough.
The Ninth Circuit held that NFTs qualify as ‘goods’ under the Lanham Act and reversed summary judgment for Yuga Labs on Bored Ape Yacht Club trademark and cybersquatting claims, finding genuine factual disputes for trial.
France’s Cour de cassation held that when assessing trademark forfeiture for non-use under Article L.714-5 CPI, courts must analyze whether the proven use covers an autonomous sub-category of goods or services narrower than the registered category — looking to the purpose or destination of the products or services rather than being constrained by Nice classification headings.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that an award of “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act is limited to the profits of the named defendant entity and may not include profits of legally separate affiliated companies, unless those affiliates are alter egos or otherwise liable.
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s restriction on registering marks that include a living person’s name without their consent is a content-based but viewpoint-neutral restriction that does not violate the First Amendment.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register EVERYBODY VS. RACISM as a trademark for apparel, holding that the phrase functions as an informational, anti-racist message rather than as a source identifier — and confirming that widespread use of a phrase in an informational context undermines trademark registration.
The Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB’s cancellation of Great Concepts’ DANTANNA’S restaurant trademark, holding that filing a fraudulent Section 15 incontestability declaration does not give the Board authority to cancel the underlying registration — fraud after registration has limited remedies under the Lanham Act.
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s trademark infringement provisions apply only to infringing use in commerce that occurs within the United States; foreign conduct is not actionable even if infringing products ultimately enter the U.S. market.
The Supreme Court held that when a defendant uses an allegedly parodic mark as a source identifier — as an actual trademark — the Rogers test for expressive works does not apply, and the ordinary likelihood-of-confusion analysis governs, with parody as a relevant but not dispositive factor.
The Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB’s cancellation of Coca-Cola’s U.S. registrations for THUMS UP and LIMCA, holding that a petitioner seeking cancellation under Lanham Act § 14(3) must show actual consumer confusion or misrepresentation affecting the U.S. market — competitive injury alone is not enough.
The Federal Circuit struck down the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that include a living person’s name without their consent as applied to “TRUMP TOO SMALL,” holding it was an unconstitutional restriction on speech critical of public figures — though the Supreme Court later reversed.
The Supreme Court held that combining a generic word with “.com” does not automatically make the resulting term generic; whether a term is generic depends on consumer perception, and “Booking.com” is not generic for hotel reservation services.
The Supreme Court held unanimously that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement case may recover the defendant’s profits under 15 U.S.C. §1117(a) without proving that the infringement was willful.
The Federal Circuit held that color marks on product packaging can be inherently distinctive and thus registrable as trademarks without proof of acquired distinctiveness, clarifying that multicolor product packaging marks are treated differently from product design marks.
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that are immoral or scandalous constitutes an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction on speech under the First Amendment.
The Federal Circuit held that a trademark registration creates a presumption of secondary meaning only as of the date of registration — not retroactively — requiring Converse to independently prove its Chuck Taylor trade dress had acquired distinctiveness before each infringer’s first infringing use.
The Federal Circuit vacated the TTAB’s decision allowing Coca-Cola to register its ZERO trademarks without a disclaimer, holding the Board applied the wrong genericness standard and failed to properly assess the degree of descriptiveness when evaluating acquired distinctiveness.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering ‘disparaging’ trademarks violates the First Amendment — invalidating the PTO’s refusal to register THE SLANTS for an Asian-American band and establishing that trademark registration is a government benefit program subject to First Amendment viewpoint neutrality requirements.
An en banc Federal Circuit held that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which bars registration of ‘disparaging’ trademarks, violates the First Amendment — a landmark ruling that the Supreme Court affirmed in Matal v. Tam (2017), eliminating one of trademark law’s longest-standing restrictions on trademark content.
The Supreme Court held that TTAB likelihood-of-confusion decisions on trademark registration can preclude relitigation of the same issue in a federal court infringement suit when the usages adjudicated are materially the same.
The Supreme Court held that competitors may bring Lanham Act false advertising claims challenging product labels even when those labels have been approved or regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The Sixth Circuit held that Static Control Components had standing to sue Lexmark under the Lanham Act for false advertising in the toner cartridge market — a ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014 under a new zone-of-interests and proximate cause standing framework that displaced the split among circuits on Lanham Act false advertising standing.
The Second Circuit held that eBay was not liable for contributory trademark infringement arising from third-party sellers listing counterfeit Tiffany jewelry, because eBay’s general knowledge that counterfeit goods were present on its platform — without specific knowledge of particular infringing listings — was insufficient to establish contributory infringement liability.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register VEUVE ROYALE for sparkling wine, holding that it was likely to cause confusion with the famous VEUVE CLICQUOT mark under the DuPont factors analysis.
The Supreme Court held that a defendant asserting classic fair use in a trademark case bears no burden to negate likelihood of confusion, and some degree of consumer confusion may coexist with a lawful fair use.
The Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB’s refusal to register BLUE MOON for beer, holding that beer and restaurant services are not presumptively related goods and services, and that the USPTO must point to something more than the mere relatedness of industries to refuse registration under the likelihood-of-confusion standard.
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s false designation of origin provision applies to the physical source of goods, not to the communicative content of expressive works — so unaccredited copying of a public domain film does not violate the Act.
The Federal Circuit held that NAFTA’s amendments to the Lanham Act require proof of actual consumer deception before a mark can be refused registration as primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, overturning a TTAB refusal of the CALIFORNIA INNOVATIONS mark.
The Supreme Court held that the Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of actual dilution of the famous mark, not merely a likelihood of dilution — a standard Congress later reversed by enacting the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006.
The Supreme Court held that when a product feature was the subject of a utility patent, that prior art disclosure is strong evidence the feature is functional and therefore unprotectable as trade dress under the Lanham Act.
The Federal Circuit vacated a TTAB opposition ruling, holding that the Board improperly analyzed likelihood of confusion by focusing only on the “Packard” component of HEWLETT-PACKARD rather than considering the marks in their entireties, and failed to apply the correct legal test for the relatedness of goods and services.
The Federal Circuit held that the TTAB failed to give proper weight to the fame of the FRITO-LAY trademark when finding no likelihood of confusion with the mark FIDO LAY for dog treats, establishing that famous marks deserve full weight in the multi-factor Dupont analysis.