Case law

With Judgment of 6 April 2022, the Federal Supreme Court upheld FIFA’s claim that the marks “PUMA WORLD CUP QATAR 2022” and “PUMA WORLD CUP 2022” were misleading, ordered these marks to be removed…

The district court erred by failing to analyze infringement under reverse confusion theory. The federal district court in Miami erred by concluding as a matter of law that Amazon.com, Inc.’s Fire TV…

The 2018 Farm Bill—which carved hemp out of the definition of marijuana—made products containing the Delta-8 THC isomer legal, which meant marks for the products could be federally protected. A…

Summary The owner of a boutique store, Ms. Kotrri (Applicant), successfully defended her trade mark application before the UKIPO for HOUSE OF ZANA, covering “clothing” in class 25, against apparel…

Manufacturer of “Mystic Tan” machines failed to show consumers were likely to be confused by salon’s use of its own solution in Mystic Tan booths. The federal district court in Akron, Ohio, did not…

In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Madrid Protocol gave a European company priority of right in a trademark even without prior use in commerce. The Ninth Circuit agreed…

This decision by the High Court – Lavinia Deborah Osbourne v (1) Individuals Unknown (2) Ozone Networks Inc. – has now confirmed that NFTs should be considered property. The facts of this case are…

Primo July we published an article about the Advocate General's opinion on the use of protected designations of origin (PDO) for export to third countries. Read the article here. With the recent…

Like the previously invalidated bar on "disparaging" marks, the "immoral/scandalous" marks prohibition violated the First Amendment as a viewpoint-based restriction on free speech. The Lanham Act’s…