Case law

NIKE no longer had a legally cognizable interest in the validity of the preliminary injunction. NIKE, Inc., was precluded from appealing a district court’s preliminary injunction issued in November…

Genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the plaintiff’s electronic system for managing brokerage accounts contained protectable trade secrets. Trade secrets misappropriation claims…

The applied-for mark NORTH 61 was properly refused because it produced a similar commercial impression to the mark 66° NORTH when both were used for apparel and retail services. The proposed mark…

The record, however, supported that "Bayside Breeze" mark was not infringed by "Boardwalk Breeze" as a matter of law. In a trademark infringement suit between competing sellers of automotive air…

Fairly well, one should say. The three decisions issued to date should dispel some of the fears that many had, as to the capability of the administration of properly substituting the Courts in…

The TTAB did not abuse its discretion by canceling the registration for HOLLYWOOD BEER as a sanction for repeated and willful failure to comply with the Board’s discovery orders in a cancellation…

It is not common that local Indian companies sue multinationals for infringement in India – and win. However, recently, just that happened: Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. (“Parle ”) sued multinational retail…

Inspired by my co-blogger Agnieszka Sztoldman’s August post on Teva’s headache over slogan (EU) trade marks, and the mood-lifting granting of protection to the slogan “STIMMUNG HOCH ZWEI” in Austria …

A manufacturer of chemically strengthened glass sold under the IONEX mark failed to show that Apple’s use of the term Ion-X to describe the glass on the Apple Watch was infringing. A manufacturer of…