Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

Lontex Corporation, a small Pennsylvania business, holds a registered trademark for “Cool Compression” used in its athletic compression apparel. Lontex sued Nike, Inc. for trademark infringement after discovering Nike's use of the phrase “Cool Compression” in its product names and marketing materials. Nike had rebranded a line of its athletic clothing as “Nike Pro” and used the phrase “Cool Compression” in product names on its website and catalogs. Lontex sent a cease-and-desist letter to Nike in 2016, but Nike continued using the phrase for some time.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held a trial where the jury found Nike liable for willful trademark infringement and contributory infringement, awarding Lontex $142,000 in compensatory damages and $365,000 in punitive damages. The District Court also trebled the compensatory damages to $426,000 and awarded Lontex nearly $5 million in attorney’s fees, deeming the case “exceptional” under the Lanham Act. Nike appealed the findings and the damages awarded, while Lontex cross-appealed the dismissal of its counterfeiting claim and the denial of profit disgorgement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s findings on trademark infringement, willfulness, and the trebling of damages. The Court held that a reasonable jury could find Nike’s continued use of “Cool Compression” after receiving the cease-and-desist letter as willful infringement. However, the Court vacated the award of attorney’s fees, finding that the District Court relied on broad policy considerations rather than specific facts of the case. The Court remanded the issue of attorney’s fees for further proceedings. The Court also upheld the dismissal of Lontex’s counterfeiting claim and the denial of profit disgorgement. View "Lontex Corp v. Nike Inc" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Gibson, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, along with Concordia Investment Partners, L.L.C. Gibson, a well-known guitar manufacturer, brought trademark-infringement and counterfeiting claims against Armadillo and Concordia, alleging that they infringed on Gibson's trademarked guitar body shapes, headstock shape, and word marks. After a ten-day trial, the jury found in favor of Gibson on several counts of infringement and counterfeiting but also found that the doctrine of laches applied to limit Gibson’s recovery of damages.The district court had excluded decades of third-party-use evidence that Armadillo and Concordia submitted in support of their genericness defense and counterclaim. Armadillo and Concordia appealed this exclusion order, arguing that the evidence was relevant to their defense that Gibson's trademarks were generic and thus not entitled to protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding all pre-1992 third-party-use evidence without examining its possible relevance. The court noted that third-party-use evidence is often relevant to show the genericness of a mark, and a mark that is generic is not entitled to trademark protection. The court concluded that the district court's error affected Armadillo’s substantial rights to put on its primary defense to the infringement and counterfeiting claims against it. Therefore, the court remanded the case for a new trial. View "Gibson, Inc. v. Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves a trademark infringement dispute between BillFloat Inc., a Delaware corporation using the "SmartBiz" trademark, and Collins Cash Inc., a New York corporation using the "Smart Business Funding" mark. BillFloat alleged that Collins Cash, its former business partner, infringed on its trademark.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court admitted Collins Cash's likelihood-of-confusion survey as expert evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. After a jury trial, the court ruled in favor of Collins Cash, finding no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The district court also partially denied Collins Cash's motion for attorneys' fees.The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Collins Cash's likelihood-of-confusion survey as expert evidence. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct the jury that it should not draw any inferences from BillFloat's lack of a similar survey. On cross-appeal, the appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Collins Cash's motion for attorneys' fees for the trademark infringement claim, either under the parties' partnership agreement or under the Lanham Act. The court concluded that the trademark claim did not relate to the partnership agreement, and the case was not "exceptional" under the Lanham Act. View "BILLFLOAT INC. V. COLLINS CASH INC." on Justia Law

The case involves a trademark dispute between two appliance companies, Appliance Liquidation Outlet, L.L.C. (ALO) and Axis Supply Corporation (Axis). ALO had been operating under its name for over two decades when Axis opened a store in 2021, using a large banner with the words “Appliance Liquidation.” ALO claimed that this led to confusion among customers who believed ALO operated both stores. When Axis refused to change its name, ALO sued for trademark infringement.The district court found that ALO had valid trademarks in the words “Appliance Liquidation Outlet” and “Appliance Liquidation,” and that Axis’s banner infringed those marks. The court ruled in favor of ALO, prohibiting Axis from using ALO’s marks or causing confusion with ALO’s brand, and awarded ALO attorney’s fees.Axis appealed, arguing that the marks were not valid, its banner did not infringe those marks, and the district court erred in awarding ALO attorney’s fees. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed in part, finding that the district court erred in ruling that “Appliance Liquidation” is a valid trademark, but did not err in finding that “Appliance Liquidation Outlet” is a valid mark that Axis’s banner infringed. The court reversed the judgment as to the “Appliance Liquidation” mark, affirmed as to the “Appliance Liquidation Outlet” mark, and vacated the fee award. View "Appliance v. Axis Supply" on Justia Law

The case involves Bacardi & Company Limited and Bacardi USA, Inc. (collectively, Bacardi) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Bacardi claimed that the PTO violated Section 9 of the Lanham Act and its own regulations by renewing a trademark registration ten years after it expired. The trademark in question is the "HAVANA CLUB," originally registered by a Cuban corporation, José Arechabala, S.A. In 1960, the Cuban government seized the corporation's assets, and by 1974, the U.S. trademark registrations for HAVANA CLUB rum had expired. Later, a company owned by the Cuban government registered the HAVANA CLUB trademark in the U.S. for itself. Bacardi, which had bought the interest in the mark from Arechabala, filed its own application to register the HAVANA CLUB mark and petitioned the PTO to cancel the Cuban government-owned company's registration.The PTO denied Bacardi's application due to the Cuban government-owned company's preexisting registration, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) denied Bacardi's cancellation petition. Bacardi then filed a civil action challenging the TTAB's denial of cancellation. Meanwhile, the Cuban government-owned company's registration was set to expire in 2006, unless it renewed its trademark. However, due to a trade embargo, the company was not permitted to pay the required renewal fee without first obtaining an exception from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC denied the company's request for an exception, and the PTO notified the company that its registration would expire due to the failure to submit the renewal fee on time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment that dismissed Bacardi's lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the Lanham Act does not foreclose an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) action for judicial review of the PTO’s compliance with statutes and regulations governing trademark registration renewal. The court found that the Lanham Act does not expressly preclude judicial review of PTO registration renewal decisions or fairly implies congressional intent to do so. Therefore, the APA’s mechanism for judicial review remains available. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Bacardi and Company Limited v. United States Patent & Trademark Office" on Justia Law

Steve Elster sought to register the trademark "Trump too small" for use on shirts and hats, drawing from a 2016 Presidential primary debate exchange. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration based on the "names clause" of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of a mark that identifies a particular living individual without their written consent. Elster argued that this clause violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the PTO's decision, but the Federal Circuit reversed.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Federal Circuit's decision, holding that the Lanham Act's names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court found that while the names clause is content-based, it is not viewpoint-based, as it does not discriminate against any particular viewpoint. The Court also noted that the names clause is grounded in a historical tradition of restricting the trademarking of names, which has coexisted with the First Amendment. The Court concluded that this history and tradition are sufficient to demonstrate that the names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court emphasized that its decision is narrow and does not set forth a comprehensive framework for judging whether all content-based but viewpoint-neutral trademark restrictions are constitutional. View "Vidal v. Elster" on Justia Law

The case involves the Luca McDermott Catena Gift Trust (Appellant) and two related family trusts, all of which are minority owners of California-based Paul Hobbs Winery, L.P. (Hobbs Winery). The trusts collectively own 21.6% of the partnership. Hobbs Winery owns the registered trademark PAUL HOBBS for wines. The Appellant and the two related family trusts filed a consolidated petition to cancel the registered marks ALVAREDOS-HOBBS and HILLICK AND HOBBS, owned by Fructuoso-Hobbs SL and Hillick & Hobbs Estate, LLC (Appellees), respectively. The petition alleged that the use of these marks by the Appellees was likely to cause confusion in the marketplace with Hobbs Winery's use of PAUL HOBBS for the same goods.The Appellees moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the family trusts were not entitled by statute to cancel the challenged marks because they were not the owners of the allegedly infringed PAUL HOBBS mark. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) granted the motions to dismiss, concluding that the family trusts lacked a statutory entitlement to bring the cancellation action. The Board also concluded that the family trusts had failed to adequately plead likelihood of confusion and fraud.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court found that the Appellant lacked entitlement to a statutory cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1064. The court held that the Appellant's alleged injury, the diminishment in value of its ownership interest in Hobbs Winery due to Appellees' use of their marks, was merely derivative of any injury suffered by Hobbs Winery itself and was too remote to provide the Appellant with a cause of action under § 1064. View "LUCA MCDERMOTT CATENA GIFT TRUST v. FRUCTUOSO-HOBBS SL " on Justia Law

Dexon Computer, Inc., a reseller of computer networking products, was sued by Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technologies, Inc. for federal trademark infringement and counterfeiting. The complaint alleged trademark infringements between 2006 and 2010, and thirty-five acts of infringement between 2015 and 2020. Dexon sought defense from Travelers Property Casualty Company of America under a liability policy it had purchased from Travelers. Travelers denied coverage and a duty to defend, arguing that all the alleged acts of trademark infringement were "related acts" under the policy and thus were deemed to have been committed before the policy's retroactive date.The District Court of Minnesota denied Travelers' motion to dismiss Dexon's claims for a declaratory judgment that Travelers has a duty to defend and indemnify. The court held that the documents submitted by the parties concerning the coverage dispute were not "matters outside the pleadings" and could be considered in ruling on the motion to dismiss. The court concluded that it could not hold, as a matter of law, that every act of trademark infringement alleged in the Cisco complaint was necessarily related to an act of trademark infringement that occurred prior to the retroactive date.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the district court correctly determined that Travelers had a duty to defend Dexon in the entire Cisco Action. The court noted that this did not resolve whether Travelers has a duty to indemnify, and if so, the extent of that duty, which would depend on the ultimate resolution of the Cisco Action. View "Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. Am." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Jalmar Araujo and Framboise Holdings Inc. over the registration of the standard character mark #TODECACHO. Araujo filed a U.S. Trademark Application to register #TODECACHO for hair combs. Framboise opposed the registration, claiming that it would likely cause confusion with its #TODECACHO design mark, which it had been using in connection with various hair products since March 24, 2017. Framboise also had a pending trademark application for the same mark.The United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) granted Framboise an extension to submit its case in chief. Araujo opposed this extension and the late submission of a declaration by Adrian Extrakt, Director of Framboise. However, the Board granted the extension, finding that the delay was minimal and that Framboise had met the applicable good cause standard. The Board then relied on the Extrakt declaration to support Framboise's claim of prior use of the #TODECACHO design mark.The Board found that Framboise had met its burden to establish prior use by a preponderance of the evidence. It found that the Extrakt declaration alone was sufficient to prove prior use because it was clear, convincing, and uncontradicted. Having found an earlier priority date for Framboise, the Board found a likelihood of confusion between the two marks, sustained the opposition, and refused registration of Araujo’s mark.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court found that the Board did not abuse its discretion in granting the extension and that the Board's finding that Framboise established prior use of the #TODECACHO design mark was supported by substantial evidence. View "ARAUJO v. FRAMBOISE HOLDINGS INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves a long-standing trademark dispute between two charities, Kars 4 Kids, Inc. and America Can! Cars for Kids. Both organizations sell donated vehicles to fund children's education programs. In 2003, Texas-based America Can discovered a Kars 4 Kids advertisement in the Dallas Morning News and sent Kars 4 Kids a cease and desist letter, asserting America Can’s rights to the “Cars for Kids” mark in Texas. Kars 4 Kids, based in New Jersey, did not respond to the letter and continued to advertise in Texas.The case was first brought to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in 2014, where both parties alleged federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution claims. A jury found that Kars 4 Kids infringed on America Can’s unregistered mark in Texas. The District Court awarded monetary and injunctive relief. However, the court's decision was appealed, and the case was remanded for the District Court to reexamine its conclusion that the doctrine of laches did not bar America Can’s claims.On remand, the District Court again concluded that laches did not bar relief. The court found that Kars 4 Kids’ advertising in Texas was not open and notorious enough to prompt America Can to act more quickly to protect its mark. The court also found that Kars 4 Kids was not prejudiced by America Can’s delay because Kars 4 Kids had assumed the risk of its advertising campaigns after receiving the 2003 cease and desist letter.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed with the District Court's findings. The appellate court held that the District Court abused its discretion by not properly applying the presumption in favor of laches. The court found that America Can failed to establish that its delay in bringing suit was excusable and that Kars 4 Kids was not prejudiced as a result of that delay. Therefore, the court vacated the District Court's judgment granting monetary and injunctive relief and remanded with instructions to dismiss America Can’s claims with prejudice based on laches. The court also dismissed as moot America Can’s cross-appeal. View "Kars 4 Kids Inc v. America Can Cars For Kids" on Justia Law