Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

Koi Design LLC retained Marron Lawyers, APC in April 2016 to represent it in a trademark dispute with Strategic Partners, Inc. When SPI sued Koi for trademark infringement, Marron—through its associate, A. Douglas Mastroianni—handled the case. Mastroianni repeatedly missed court deadlines and failed to participate in required discovery meetings, prompting warnings and potential sanctions from the court. Marron did not inform Koi of these mishaps or its internal concerns about Mastroianni’s competence. After repeated lapses, Marron terminated Mastroianni, but again did not disclose the reasons to Koi. Mastroianni continued to represent Koi at a new firm, and Koi ultimately suffered terminating sanctions and a default judgment with trebled damages, leading to bankruptcy.Koi sued Marron, Mastroianni, and another firm for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and negligent supervision in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Bloom Firm settled, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Marron on all claims, concluding that Koi had not established that Marron’s conduct caused its injuries. Koi appealed, arguing the district court erred both by granting summary judgment on grounds not adequately noticed and by finding no genuine dispute of material fact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The court held that Marron owed duties to disclose material facts and supervise its employees under California law and professional conduct rules. The Ninth Circuit found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Marron breached those duties and whether its conduct was a “but for” cause of Koi’s harm. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find Marron liable and remanded for further proceedings. View "IN RE: KOI DESIGN LLC V. MARRON LAWYERS, APC" on Justia Law

A manufacturer of battery chargers, which owns the registered trademarks “Battery Tender” and “Deltran Battery Tender,” discovered that a competitor began advertising its own similar chargers using those terms. The competitor used the marks in multiple ways: purchasing them as keywords to trigger ads on Amazon, including the marks in the text of its Amazon ads and product descriptions, and referring to its own products as “battery tenders” in communications with marketing firms and consumers. The trademark owner sent several cease-and-desist letters, but the conduct continued. The company then sued the competitor for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and related state law claims.In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a jury found in favor of the trademark owner on all counts, including trademark infringement and false advertising, and awarded damages. The district court denied the competitor’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, and later ordered disgorgement of profits and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the competitor from using the marks, as well as the term “tender,” in connection with its products. The competitor appealed, challenging the jury’s findings, the district court’s legal rulings, and the scope of the injunction and damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the “Battery Tender” marks were not generic, but at least descriptive with secondary meaning, and affirmed the finding of trademark infringement for visible uses of the marks. However, the court held that purchasing the marks as keywords alone does not constitute infringement, reversed the jury’s verdict on false advertising, and vacated the damages award for a new trial, as the amount could not be separated from improper theories. The court affirmed the injunction and disgorgement order. View "Deltona Transformer Corporation v. The Noco Company" on Justia Law

A company that owns the trademarks and trade dress for a well-known whiskey product objected to a dog toy produced by another company that parodied its bottle and labeling. The toy, named “Bad Spaniels,” mimicked the whiskey’s visual design and replaced references to the whiskey with scatological humor, including phrases like “Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet.” The whiskey company demanded the toy’s removal from the market, but the toy company instead filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of non-infringement and non-dilution. The whiskey company responded with counterclaims for trademark infringement and dilution under federal and state law.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona initially found in favor of the whiskey company after a bench trial, concluding the dog toy infringed and diluted its trademarks and trade dress. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed on the dilution claim and vacated the finding of infringement. After further appeals, including a remand from the Supreme Court, the district court again found the toy company liable for dilution by tarnishment and entered a permanent injunction in favor of the whiskey company. The toy company appealed, arguing the whiskey company failed to establish dilution and that the federal dilution law was unconstitutional as applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the whiskey company did not meet its burden to show dilution by tarnishment under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. The court found that only “Jack Daniel’s” and its trade dress were proven famous, and the parody toy’s marks and trade dress, though similar, did not facially tarnish the famous marks or portray them in an unsavory context likely to damage their reputation. The court vacated the district court’s injunction and remanded for judgment in favor of the toy company. View "VIP PRODUCTS, LLC V. JACK DANIEL'S PROPERTIES, INC." on Justia Law

Two companies manufacture and market water hoses. One company, after registering a trademark for the color chartreuse as applied to the body of its hoses, sued its competitor, claiming trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and related Iowa common law. The competitor responded by arguing that the chartreuse color was a functional feature, not eligible for trademark protection, and requested that the trademark registration be canceled and the claims dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa held a bench trial and found in favor of the defendant. The court concluded that the chartreuse color served a functional purpose by making the hoses more visible and thus safer, which is a utilitarian advantage. The court also found that the color had not acquired the distinctiveness required for trademark protection, but determined that either ground was sufficient for cancellation. The district court canceled the trademark registration, dismissed all claims, and awarded the defendant more than three million dollars in attorneys’ fees, finding the case “exceptional” due to the plaintiff’s lack of candor before the USPTO, trial conduct, and continued misapplication of the functionality standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s factual finding of functionality for clear error and its award of attorneys' fees for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s determination that the chartreuse color was functional and thus unregistrable as a trademark. It also upheld the attorneys’ fees award, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s assessment of the plaintiff’s conduct and the exceptional nature of the case. View "Weems Industries, Inc. v. Teknor Apex Company" on Justia Law

A North Carolina software company initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against its former business partner, a Dutch entity, after their business relationship dissolved. The plaintiff alleged copyright and trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and various state law violations. Shortly after the complaint, the plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction limiting the defendant’s business activities. Meanwhile, the defendant commenced related litigation in the Netherlands. During those Dutch proceedings, the defendant’s American attorney, Pressly Millen, submitted an affidavit that the plaintiff claimed misrepresented the scope and timing of the U.S. litigation.The Dutch court initially denied the plaintiff’s request to stay the Dutch proceedings, partly relying on representations from the defendant’s counsel. The plaintiff returned to the North Carolina court, seeking an order requiring the defendant to correct these alleged misrepresentations in the Dutch court. The district court ordered the defendant to submit both its order and a corrective statement to the Dutch court. The defendant submitted the order but did not file the separate corrective statement. Later, the Dutch court stayed its proceedings. The plaintiff then moved for contempt sanctions in the North Carolina court against the defendant and its attorneys for failing to comply fully with the correction order. Following a show cause hearing, the district court held the defendant and Millen in civil contempt, sanctioning Millen by suspending his ability to practice in the district, though not holding him jointly liable for monetary sanctions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that it had jurisdiction to review the contempt order against Millen, a nonparty. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing civil contempt sanctions on Millen without clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff was harmed by Millen’s failure to submit the separate statement. The court vacated the civil contempt adjudication and sanction against Millen. View "Dmarcian, Inc. v. Millen" on Justia Law

An American software company based in North Carolina and a Dutch company entered into a business relationship that later soured. The American company alleged that the Dutch company stole its brand name, software code, and customer base. The Dutch company operated a website nearly identical to the American company’s, using its name, logo, and marketing materials, and targeted American customers, even convincing at least one U.S. company to switch providers. Disputes between the parties also led to reciprocal lawsuits in both the United States and the Netherlands, with overlapping subject matter.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina initially issued a preliminary injunction against the Dutch company, finding the American company was likely to succeed on its copyright, trademark, trade secret, and tortious interference claims. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. altered the standard for the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act, the district court modified its injunction to comply with the new “conduct-focused” approach and dismissed the copyright claim. The district court also ordered the Dutch company to correct statements made to the Dutch court and later held the company in civil contempt for failing to comply fully, imposing a monetary sanction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Applying the Supreme Court’s new guidance from Abitron, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the second amended preliminary injunction, holding that the Dutch company’s conduct constituted infringing use in U.S. commerce under the Lanham Act, and that the Defend Trade Secrets Act’s express extraterritorial provision was satisfied by acts in furtherance of misappropriation occurring in the United States. The court dismissed the appeals from the correction and contempt orders for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Dmarcian, Inc. v. DMARC Advisor BV" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, including the son and estate of designer George Nelson, brought claims against MillerKnoll, Inc. (formerly Herman Miller, Inc.), arguing that MillerKnoll had wrongfully obtained and used intellectual property rights related to the iconic “Bubble Lamp” design. The key facts center on a series of agreements: George Nelson originally had a royalty arrangement with the company, and after his death, his widow Jacqueline Nelson continued this relationship, entering into a 2006 Royalty Agreement. In 2013, Jacqueline assigned her IP rights to the George Nelson Foundation (GNF). After a separate company, Modernica, registered trademarks related to Bubble Lamps, GNF and Modernica settled a lawsuit in 2015, resulting in MillerKnoll acquiring the Bubble Lamp trademarks. Around this time, the Nelsons executed a 2015 Addendum to the Royalty Agreement, adding lamp products to its scope.The plaintiffs first filed suit in the Southern District of New York, raising claims of fraud, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, state law trademark infringement, and seeking cancellation of the Bubble Lamp trademarks. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan due to a forum selection clause. After initial motions were denied, the district court granted summary judgment to MillerKnoll on all claims, finding that the agreements authorized MillerKnoll’s use and ownership of the Bubble Lamp IP and that plaintiffs had ratified this by accepting royalty payments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the 2006 Royalty Agreement, as amended by the 2015 Addendum, unambiguously authorized MillerKnoll’s ownership and use of the Bubble Lamp intellectual property, defeating all infringement and tort claims. The court also found that the plaintiffs had ratified any alleged misconduct by accepting royalties, and that there was insufficient evidence to support cancellation of the trademarks. Judgment for MillerKnoll was affirmed. View "Nelson v. MillerKnoll, Inc." on Justia Law

Two organizations involved in competitive cheerleading became embroiled in a dispute over the use of two marks: “THE CHEERLEADING WORLDS,” which is registered on the Supplemental Register with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and “WORLDS,” which is claimed as an unregistered common law mark. The plaintiff, a governing body for competitive cheerleading, has held an annual event under these marks since 2004. The defendants, including a group of former members of the plaintiff organization, began hosting a similarly named event in the same region, allegedly causing confusion among participants and the public.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that both marks were generic as a matter of law and thus not entitled to trademark protection. The court found that the terms described the basic nature of the plaintiff’s services and discounted evidence showing non-generic use, reasoning that the plaintiff’s event had long been the only one of its kind. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants were barred from contesting the marks’ distinctiveness due to an earlier dismissal of an affirmative defense with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. The appellate court held that the issue of distinctiveness was properly before the district court, as distinctiveness is an element of the plaintiff’s claim and not an affirmative defense. The Eleventh Circuit found that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the marks were descriptive or had acquired secondary meaning, based on evidence of public association with the plaintiff’s event. The court remanded the case for trial, holding that summary judgment was inappropriate because a reasonable jury could find the marks protectable. The court also declined to decide issues of likelihood of confusion and individual liability without factual findings. View "U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. v. Open Cheer & Dance Championship Series, LLC" on Justia Law

A Chinese citizen was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In 2012, New Jersey charged him with trademark counterfeiting. While awaiting trial, he traveled temporarily to China. Upon his return to the U.S., a border officer, aware of his pending criminal charge, declined to treat him as already admitted and instead paroled him into the country pending the outcome of his case. After he pleaded guilty to the state charge in 2013, the government initiated removal proceedings, charging him as an applicant for admission who was inadmissible because of his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.An Immigration Judge found him removable on these grounds, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The respondent sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court vacated the removal order, holding that unless border officers had “clear and convincing” evidence at the time of entry that the lawful permanent resident had committed the crime, the individual must be treated as already admitted. The Second Circuit concluded that the pending criminal charge did not constitute clear and convincing evidence, so the individual should not have been paroled but deemed admitted, and thus could not be removed on inadmissibility grounds.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment. The Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officers to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating the resident as an applicant for admission. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings, without deciding whether the underlying crime involved moral turpitude. View "Blanche v. Lau" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the HAVANA CLUB trademark, originally registered in the United States in 1976 by a Cuban state-owned company, Cubaexport. Due to changes in U.S. law, renewal of the trademark registration required a specific license from the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) after 1998. In December 2005, Cubaexport submitted its renewal application and payment to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) without the required OFAC license. OFAC later notified the PTO that the payment was unauthorized, leading to the PTO’s refund of the fee and refusal to renew the registration. Cubaexport unsuccessfully litigated against OFAC and, in 2015, reapplied for the license, which OFAC granted retroactively in 2016, authorizing the 2005 payment.After the PTO Director accepted Cubaexport’s renewal filing based on the retroactive OFAC license, Bacardi sued the PTO and its Director in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Bacardi argued the PTO lacked statutory authority to renew the expired registration and acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The district court initially dismissed the case, finding judicial review precluded by the Lanham Act, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded. On remand, Cubaexport intervened, and after cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted judgment for the defendants, finding the OFAC license validated the payment and that any deficiency was cured during the petition process.Reviewing the district court’s summary judgment de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the PTO Director acted within statutory authority, as the retroactive OFAC license validated the 2005 payment, satisfying the renewal requirements. The court also held the Director’s explanation for the renewal was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Bacardi and Company Limited v. Squires" on Justia Law