Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs in this case are the sons of Roberto Clemente, a renowned Puerto Rican baseball player, and two corporations they control. The dispute centers on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s use of Clemente’s name and image on commemorative license plates and vehicle registration tags. Proceeds from these items were designated to fund a new “Roberto Clemente Sports District,” a public project that would replace an earlier initiative, Ciudad Deportiva, originally founded by Clemente. The plaintiffs allege that they hold trademark rights in Clemente’s name and that the Commonwealth’s actions were unauthorized and caused public confusion, with many mistakenly believing the Clemente family benefited financially from the program.The plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Commonwealth, several high-ranking officials, and the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority. Their claims included trademark infringement, false association, false advertising, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, as well as a takings claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Commonwealth and the Authority moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign and qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The district court granted both motions, dismissing all federal claims on immunity and merits grounds, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over non-federal claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the Authority and all claims against the Commonwealth and its officials in their official capacities. It also affirmed dismissal of the false advertising and takings claims. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement, false endorsement, and dilution against the Commonwealth officials in their personal capacities, holding those claims were plausibly alleged and not barred by qualified immunity at this stage, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia" on Justia Law

Illinois Tamale Company, a Chicago-based food manufacturer, brought a trademark infringement suit against LC Trademarks and Little Caesar Enterprises, alleging that Little Caesars’ launch and advertising of its “Crazy Puffs” product infringed Iltaco’s registered trademarks for “Pizza Puff” and “Puff.” Iltaco has sold its “Pizza Puff” product for decades and registered the “Pizza Puff” trademark in 2009 and the “Puff” mark in 2022. Little Caesars, a national pizza chain, began selling “Crazy Puffs” in 2024, marketing them with its established “Crazy” branding and trade dress, and included the phrase “4 Hand-Held Pizza Puffs” in small print as part of its advertising.After receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Iltaco, Little Caesars disputed the claims and continued its use of the contested names. Iltaco filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting Lanham Act and related state law claims and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Little Caesars from using “Crazy Puffs,” “Pizza Puff,” or “Puff.” The district court denied the injunction for “Crazy Puffs” and “Puff,” finding no sufficient likelihood of success on those claims, but granted the injunction for “Pizza Puff,” ruling that Iltaco was likely to prove infringement with respect to that mark.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting the injunction for “Pizza Puff,” finding that Iltaco failed to show a likelihood of success in proving the mark was protectable and in rebutting Little Caesars’ fair use defense. The court affirmed the district court’s decision denying the injunction as to “Crazy Puffs” and “Puff.” Thus, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc." on Justia Law

Crocs, Inc. owns two U.S. trademarks covering features of its Classic Clog shoes. In June 2021, Crocs filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging that several respondents violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing or selling footwear that infringed or diluted Crocs’s trademarks. Crocs sought a general exclusion order (GEO) or, in the alternative, a limited exclusion order (LEO). During the investigation, some respondents were found in default for failing to participate, while others actively defended against the claims.An Administrative Law Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing for the three active respondents and, in January 2023, issued an Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337. The judge concluded that Crocs had not shown infringement or dilution of its trademarks and had waived infringement contentions against the defaulting respondents. The Commission reviewed parts of this determination and, in September 2023, issued a final decision: it found no violation by the active respondents and determined not to apply the waiver to the defaulting respondents. For the defaulting respondents, the ITC presumed the facts in Crocs’s complaint to be true, as required by statute, and issued an LEO against them, finding no public interest factors weighed against exclusion.On appeal, Crocs challenged both the no violation finding as to active respondents and the issuance of only an LEO rather than a GEO for the defaulting respondents. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Crocs’s appeal regarding the active respondents was untimely and dismissed it. Regarding the defaulting respondents, the court affirmed the Commission’s decision to issue a limited exclusion order, finding no abuse of discretion or error in law. Thus, the appeal was dismissed in part and affirmed in part. View "CROCS, INC. v. ITC " on Justia Law

A South Korean entertainment company that owns trademarks for the popular “Baby Shark” song and related products brought a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against dozens of China-based businesses. The company alleged these businesses manufactured or sold counterfeit Baby Shark merchandise, violating trademark, copyright, and unfair competition laws. Seeking to stop the alleged counterfeiting, the company obtained temporary and preliminary injunctions and moved to serve the defendants by email, arguing that this method was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3).After the plaintiff served process by email, most defendants did not respond, leading to default judgments against many of them. However, two defendants appeared and challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that service by email violated the Hague Service Convention, to which both the United States and China are parties. The district court agreed, finding that the Convention did not permit service by email on parties in China, and dismissed the claims against these defendants without prejudice for improper service. The plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the Hague Service Convention does not allow email service on defendants located in China, as China has expressly objected to alternative methods such as those in Article 10 of the Convention. The court further held that neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(2) nor any purported emergency exception permitted email service in these circumstances. The court also upheld the denial of a default judgment, finding no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the dismissal of the claims against the two China-based defendants for lack of proper service was affirmed. View "Smart Study Co., LTD v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi" on Justia Law

A non-profit organization focused on supporting student-athletes registered a stylized mark incorporating the phrase “I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE. GP GAME PLAN” for use in charitable fundraising via apparel sales. Later, a media company filed six intent-to-use applications for marks containing “I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE” and “MORE THAN AN ATHLETE,” covering clothing and entertainment services. The non-profit opposed these applications before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, arguing likelihood of confusion and asserting priority based on both its registration and alleged common law rights. The media company counterclaimed, seeking cancellation of the non-profit’s registration and asserting that it had acquired priority through an assignment of common law rights from a third party who had used “MORE THAN AN ATHLETE” since at least 2012.During the Board proceeding, the non-profit failed to introduce any trial evidence to establish its common law rights or priority. The Board dismissed the opposition due to lack of evidence. As to the counterclaim, the Board found that the media company had acquired valid and enforceable common law rights in the mark through its assignment, which included the goodwill associated with the mark. The Board rejected arguments that the assignment was invalid because it occurred during litigation or was an assignment in gross, and concluded that, at least for clothing, the transfer was valid. The Board canceled the non-profit’s registration and dismissed its opposition.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo. The court held that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed that the assignment was not in gross, did not violate statutory or regulatory prohibitions, and that the non-profit’s failure to submit evidence justified dismissal. The decision to cancel the non-profit’s registration and dismiss its opposition was affirmed. View "GAME PLAN, INC. v. UNINTERRUPTED IP, LLC " on Justia Law

Bayou Grande Coffee Roasting Company applied to register the trademark KAHWA for use in connection with cafés and coffee shops. The trademark examiner refused registration on the grounds that KAHWA was generic or merely descriptive, relying on two meanings: one, that KAHWA allegedly means “coffee” in Arabic, and two, that it refers to a specific type of Kashmiri green tea. The examiner also invoked the doctrine of foreign equivalents, which tests foreign words for genericness and descriptiveness by translating them into English.After Bayou responded, arguing that KAHWA does not mean coffee in Arabic and that the Kashmiri green tea meaning is not relevant to American cafés and coffee shops, the examiner maintained refusals on both grounds. Bayou requested reconsideration, and the examiner continued to refuse registration, reiterating both rationales. Bayou appealed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which affirmed the refusal solely on the basis of the Kashmiri green tea meaning, without addressing the Arabic coffee meaning.On further appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Bayou contended that the Board’s findings of genericness and mere descriptiveness were unsupported by substantial evidence, and also challenged reliance on the doctrine of foreign equivalents. The Federal Circuit held that there was no evidence showing any café or coffee shop in the United States has ever sold kahwa, and thus KAHWA cannot be generic or merely descriptive for cafés and coffee shops. The court also concluded that the doctrine of foreign equivalents does not apply because KAHWA has a well-established English meaning as Kashmiri green tea. The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s decision, holding that KAHWA is registrable for the identified services. View "In Re BAYOU GRANDE COFFEE ROASTING CO. " on Justia Law

The dispute centers on allegations of intellectual property infringement involving shower curtains designed with embedded rings, eliminating the need for traditional hooks. The plaintiffs, a group of related companies, own several patents covering these “hookless” shower curtains, as well as registered and unregistered trademark and trade dress rights. The defendants, two companies that manufactured and sold similar shower curtains, were accused of infringing these patents, trademarks, and trade dress. The accused products featured rings with a flat upper edge and a slit, allowing the curtain to be attached to a rod without hooks.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the defendants’ motion to transfer venue was denied as untimely. The district court granted summary judgment of patent infringement in favor of the plaintiffs, based on its claim constructions, and precluded the defendants’ unclean hands defense for being raised too late. After a bench trial, the court found that the defendants infringed the asserted patents, the HOOKLESS® and EZ ON trademarks, and the claimed trade dress, and that some infringement was willful. The court awarded lost profits, reasonable royalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the venue transfer and the exclusion of the unclean hands defense. However, it reversed the findings of infringement for the ’248 and ’609 patents as to one defendant, vacated the ’088 patent infringement finding as to that defendant, and affirmed the patent infringement findings as to the other. The court also vacated the trade dress infringement and willfulness findings, reversed the EZ ON trademark infringement finding, and vacated the HOOKLESS® trademark infringement finding. The award of attorneys’ fees was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. The court clarified the standards for claim construction, trade dress functionality, and standing to assert trademark rights. View "Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co." on Justia Law

A company that provides credit card services under the registered mark ASPIRE opposed the registration of two marks—ASPIRE BANK word and design marks—by a Tennessee retail bank, Apex Bank. Apex Bank, which does not offer credit cards but provides various banking services, filed intent-to-use applications for the ASPIRE BANK marks for “banking and financing services.” CC Serve, the credit card company, argued that Apex’s proposed marks were confusingly similar to its own ASPIRE mark, which has been used in connection with credit card services since 1996.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) reviewed the opposition and sustained it under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, finding that there was a likelihood of consumer confusion between the marks. The Board analyzed several factors from the E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. case, including the similarity of the services and the marks themselves, and concluded that the services were highly similar and that confusion was likely. Apex Bank appealed the TTAB’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s finding that the parties’ services are highly similar, upholding the Board’s analysis of the second DuPont factor. However, the appellate court found that the Board erred in its analysis of the sixth DuPont factor by narrowly considering only marks used for credit card services, rather than similar marks used for broader banking and financing services. The court also vacated the Board’s analysis of the first DuPont factor, as reconsideration of the sixth factor could affect the assessment of the marks’ commercial impression. The case was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp." on Justia Law

Trader Joe’s, a national grocery store chain, has used its distinctive trademarks, including a unique red typeface and logo, since 1967 and does not franchise or license these marks. The company also sells branded merchandise such as reusable tote bags. Trader Joe’s United, a labor union representing some of Trader Joe’s employees, began selling merchandise—including tote bags, apparel, mugs, and buttons—on its website, allegedly using Trader Joe’s trademarks and design elements. Trader Joe’s sent cease-and-desist letters, objecting only to the union’s commercial use of its marks on merchandise, not to the union’s use of the company name for identification or advocacy. The union refused to comply, and Trader Joe’s filed suit, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and related claims.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the union’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, finding no plausible likelihood of consumer confusion under the Sleekcraft factors and concluding that the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA) barred injunctive relief because the dispute arose from a labor dispute. The district court also dismissed the trademark dilution claim under the nominative fair use doctrine and awarded attorneys’ fees to the union, finding the suit frivolous and improperly motivated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the trademark infringement claim, holding that, when viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Trader Joe’s, the district court erred in its application of the Sleekcraft likelihood-of-confusion test. The appellate court also held that the district court erred in dismissing the dilution claim without proper analysis and in concluding that the NLGA categorically barred injunctive relief at the pleading stage. The Ninth Circuit vacated the attorneys’ fees award and remanded for further proceedings. View "TRADER JOE'S COMPANY V. TRADER JOES UNITED" on Justia Law

Two brothers, Tom and Robert Hoffmann, were formerly partners in a family heating and air conditioning business. After Robert bought out Tom’s interest, they settled their disputes in state court with an agreement that included a four-year prohibition on Tom’s use of the “Hoffmann” name in any HVAC business, as well as non-disparagement and non-solicitation clauses. After the four-year period, Tom started a new company, Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC, using the family name. Robert and his company, Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., objected and filed suit in federal court, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Tom and his company on the copyright claim, finding insufficient evidence of damages or a causal link between the alleged infringement and any profits. The remaining claims proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a mixed verdict largely favoring Tom and his company on the trademark and unfair competition claims. Both sides sought attorney fees, but the district court denied all requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the copyright claim, holding that the evidence of damages and profits was too speculative. It also upheld the jury instructions and verdict on the trademark claims, finding the instructions properly reflected the law regarding customer sophistication and initial-interest confusion. The court agreed that ambiguity in the settlement agreement’s language about post-four-year use of the Hoffmann name was a factual question for the jury. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of attorney fees to Robert, as he had not personally incurred any fees. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "Hoffmann Bros. Heating & Air v. Hoffmann Air & Heating" on Justia Law