Likelihood of confusion

The ”Pearl” decision by the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) may not be brand new (15 October 2020), but it is interesting in many respects. This post will deal with the similarity of goods. Facts The…

Substantial evidence supported the Board’s likelihood of confusion finding. Substantial evidence supported the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that registration of the mark FOCUSVISION for…

The district court on remand failed to explain the reason’s for its summary judgment and order directing the PTO to register a rival restaurant’s mark. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City for…

  According to the German Federal Supreme Court’s decision of 29 July 2021 (Case I ZR 139/20) the gold-colored foil of Lindt’s chocolate bunny is protected by a trademark acquired through use. The…

The summary judgment finding by the district court which rejected an air mattress company’s theory of initial-interest confusion and the accompanying jury instruction that a likelihood of confusion…

The assessment of likelihood of confusion among descriptive marks often causes puzzling decisions, especially when the analysis focuses on whether consumers understand the descriptive character of…

The Swedish Patent and Market Court (PMD) ruled out a likelihood of confusion between two figurative trademarks for “ghost” and “GHOST VODKA” based on their mere visual differences. In fact, the…

In our view they should, but the General Court held otherwise on January 27, 2021 in Case T-817/19, basically finding that coincidence in a non-distinctive element will still lead to a finding of…

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…