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…
Readers might recall an earlier article (see here) discussing the positions of the General Court (GC) and the EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal (BoA) regarding (dis…
In case you are engaged in a “hot dispute” in this hot summer, so as to “cool-off” a bit, this is to start a discussion about settlement options for pending litigation.
[A lawsuit taking a good…
Let us start this article by asking two questions - would you be confused by a take-away Chinese and a posh Chinese restaurant in central London even if they share the same name? Will you convince…
The LEHMAN BROTHERS mark has been used continuously in the course of winding up the affairs of at least one Lehman Brothers affiliated company.
In a case involving competing applications to register…
