The Summer 2024 Olympics in Paris are underway and while millions of eyes are on the games, the United States Olympic & Paralympics Committee (“USOPC”) has its eyes peeled for trademark infringers. The USOPC serves both the National Olympic Committee and National Paralympic Committee for the U.S. and is responsible for the training and … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision with important ramifications on how petitions for cancellation due to fraud will be handled by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) going forward. In Great Concepts LLC v. Chutter, Inc., the Court, with a 2-1 majority, found that the Board wrongly cancelled the registration of a trademark … Continue Reading
As we recently covered in this space, the Supreme Court in Abitron Austria GmbH et al. v. Hetronic International, Inc. held that Sections 1114(1)(a) and 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the infringing use in commerce is domestic. We anticipated that district courts would soon be addressing … Continue Reading
The authors wish to thank Summer Associate Will Baker (Cleveland) for his work on this timely blog. Trademark owners take note: In Abitron Austria GmbH et al. v. Hetronic International, Inc. the Supreme Court definitively ruled that Sections 1114(1)(a) and 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the … Continue Reading
On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a trademark owner may recover an infringer’s profits under the federal Lanham Act without having to prove that the trademark infringement was “willful.” The ruling, in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc. (Docket No. 18-1233), resolved a split among the Circuit Courts on this issue. … Continue Reading
On June 24, 2019, the US Supreme Court invalidated the Lanham Act’s ban on registering “immoral or scandalous” trademarks. In Iancu v. Brunetti, the Court held that that the ban, in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, violated the First Amendment because it required the Government to discriminate against certain viewpoints: marks considered to have … Continue Reading
In what many are calling a “game changing” decision, on March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court articulated the requirements for standing in false advertising cases brought under the Lanham Act in Lexmark v. Static Control, 572 U.S. ____ (2014). The long-running dispute between Static and Lexmark relates to the replacement toner market for printers. Lexmark … Continue Reading
