Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

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

Erik Brunetti applied to register the word “FUCK” as a trademark for various goods and services, including sunglasses, jewelry, bags, and retail store services. After initial refusals based on the mark being “immoral or scandalous”—a ground later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Iancu v. Brunetti—the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) reexamined the applications. The PTO’s examining attorney refused registration, finding that the term was a widely used, commonplace word that failed to function as a trademark because consumers would not perceive it as identifying the source of the goods or services.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the refusals, concluding that the mark did not serve as a source indicator. The Board reasoned that “FUCK” is an “all-purpose word” with many recognized meanings and is commonly used on similar goods by various sources, so it would not be seen by consumers as distinguishing Brunetti’s products from others. The Board also rejected Brunetti’s constitutional arguments and his reliance on other registered marks, stating that each application must be considered on its own merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court rejected most of Brunetti’s arguments but found that the Board failed to articulate a clear and rational standard for when an “all-purpose word” like “FUCK” can or cannot function as a trademark, especially given the existence of similar registered marks. The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the Board must provide a satisfactory explanation and coherent guidance for its actions. View "In Re BRUNETTI " on Justia Law

Sunkist Growers, Inc. ("Sunkist") opposed Intrastate Distributors, Inc.'s ("IDI") applications to register the mark KIST in standard characters and a stylized form for soft drinks, arguing a likelihood of confusion with its registered SUNKIST marks. Sunkist has offered SUNKIST branded beverages for at least ninety years and owns multiple SUNKIST trademark registrations. IDI, a bottling company, purchased the KIST brand in 2009 and has used it for various soda products.The United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") dismissed Sunkist's opposition, finding no likelihood of confusion between IDI's KIST marks and Sunkist's SUNKIST marks. The Board analyzed the DuPont factors and found that while the similarity of goods, trade channels, conditions of sale, and strength of Sunkist's mark favored a likelihood of confusion, the similarity of the marks and actual confusion factors did not. The Board concluded that the different commercial impressions of the marks (KIST referencing a kiss and SUNKIST referencing the sun) and the lack of reported instances of confusion outweighed the other factors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board's decision. The court found that the Board's conclusion regarding the different commercial impressions of the marks was not supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the KIST mark did not consistently include a lips image and that the SUNKIST mark was often used without a sun design. The court concluded that the similarity of the marks favored a likelihood of confusion and that the Board's finding of no likelihood of confusion was incorrect. The court reversed the Board's decision, holding that IDI's KIST marks are likely to cause confusion with Sunkist's registered SUNKIST marks. View "Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Intrastate Distributors, Inc." on Justia Law

Top Brand and Cozy Comfort are competitors in the market for oversized hooded sweatshirts. Cozy Comfort owns a design patent (D788 patent) and two trademarks for "THE COMFY" related to blanket throws. Top Brand sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the design patent, while Cozy Comfort counterclaimed for infringement of both the design patent and trademarks. The jury found in favor of Cozy Comfort, determining that Top Brand had infringed both the design patent and the trademarks, and awarded Cozy Comfort $15.4 million for patent infringement and $3.08 million for trademark infringement.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Top Brand's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and entered judgment based on the jury's verdict. Top Brand then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The Federal Circuit held that the principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents. The court found that Top Brand was entitled to JMOL of noninfringement of the design patent because the accused design fell within the scope of the subject matter surrendered during prosecution. The court also concluded that substantial evidence did not support the jury’s verdict of trademark infringement. Consequently, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL and found in favor of Top Brand on both the design patent and trademark infringement claims. View "Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Co." on Justia Law

Rebecca Curtin filed an opposition to United Trademark Holdings’ (UTH) registration of the mark RAPUNZEL for dolls and toy figures, claiming the mark was generic, descriptive, and failed to function as a trademark. Curtin, a doll collector and mother, argued that the registration would harm consumers by reducing competition and increasing prices for Rapunzel merchandise. She also claimed it would chill the creation of new Rapunzel-themed dolls and toys.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissed Curtin’s opposition, concluding she was not statutorily entitled to oppose the registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1063. The TTAB applied the Lexmark framework, which requires a plaintiff to fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute and to show a reasonable belief in damage proximately caused by the registration. The TTAB found that Curtin, as a consumer, did not have a commercial interest protected by the Lanham Act and that her alleged injuries were too remote and speculative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the TTAB’s decision, agreeing that the Lexmark framework was correctly applied. The court held that the interests protected by the Lanham Act in this context are commercial, and Curtin, as a consumer, did not fall within the zone of interests. Additionally, the court found that Curtin’s alleged injuries were derivative of harms to commercial actors and too remote to establish proximate causation. Thus, Curtin was not entitled to oppose the registration of the RAPUNZEL mark. View "CURTIN v. UNITED TRADEMARK HOLDINGS, INC. " on Justia Law

Vetements Group AG filed applications to register two marks, "VETEMENTS" in standard characters and in stylized form, for clothing items and online retail store services featuring clothing. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Examining Attorney refused the applications, asserting that the marks were generic or merely descriptive without acquired distinctiveness, and thus barred from registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) affirmed the Examining Attorney's refusal, applying the foreign equivalents doctrine. The Board found that "VETEMENTS," which translates to "clothing" in English, was generic for the identified goods and services. The Board also determined that the marks were highly descriptive and that Vetements Group AG failed to establish acquired distinctiveness among U.S. consumers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the Board's decision. The court agreed that the foreign equivalents doctrine was correctly applied, noting that an appreciable number of Americans are capable of translating "VETEMENTS" from French to English. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that the marks were generic, as they directly referred to the genus of goods and services in question. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision to refuse registration of the marks. View "In Re VETEMENTS GROUP AG " on Justia Law

Thomas D. Foster, APC (Foster) sought to register the trademark "US SPACE FORCE" for various goods and services. The application was filed on March 19, 2018, shortly after President Donald J. Trump announced the creation of a new military branch called the Space Force. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examining attorney refused the registration, citing a false suggestion of a connection with the United States under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) affirmed the examining attorney’s refusal, concluding that the mark falsely suggested a connection with the United States. Foster requested reconsideration, arguing that the Board erred by not crediting the filing date of the intent-to-use application as the constructive use date and by relying on evidence post-dating the filing date. The Board denied reconsideration, maintaining that Foster was not the prior user and that there was ample evidence supporting the false connection analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the appropriate timing for assessing a false suggestion of a connection includes evidence up to the time of examination, which in this case extended through the Board’s December 12, 2022 decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s findings that the mark "US SPACE FORCE" was the same as or a close approximation of a name or identity used by the United States and that it pointed uniquely and unmistakably to the United States. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that the mark falsely suggested a connection with the United States and was therefore unregistrable under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act. View "In Re FOSTER" on Justia Law

PT Medisafe Technologies, a medical glove manufacturer, applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for registration of a color mark for use on medical examination gloves. The proposed mark was described as the color dark green (Pantone 3285 c) applied to the entire surface of chloroprene examination gloves. The PTO’s examining attorney found the color was not inherently distinctive and could not be registered without showing acquired distinctiveness. Medisafe attempted to prove acquired distinctiveness but was ultimately rejected by the examining attorney, who determined the mark was generic and had not acquired distinctiveness.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) reviewed the examining attorney’s decision. The Board applied a modified version of the H. Marvin Ginn test, tailored for color marks, as set out in Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Freud America, Inc. The Board defined the genus of goods as all chloroprene medical examination gloves and found the relevant public to include all purchasers of such gloves. The Board agreed with the examining attorney that the dark green color was common in the industry and could not identify a single source, thus deeming the mark generic. The Board also found Medisafe’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness unconvincing and affirmed the refusal to register the mark.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court affirmed the Board’s application of the Milwaukee test and found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that the mark was generic. The court held that the dark green color was so common in the industry that it could not serve as a source indicator, making it ineligible for registration on either the principal or supplemental registers. The court did not address the issue of acquired distinctiveness, as a generic mark cannot acquire distinctiveness. View "In Re PT MEDISAFE TECHNOLOGIES " on Justia Law

Heritage Alliance offers voter guides under the names “iVoterGuide” and “iVoterGuide.com.” In January 2019, the American Policy Roundtable (APR) filed for registration of the marks “iVoters” and “iVoters.com.” Heritage opposed APR’s registration, claiming that APR’s marks would likely be confused with Heritage’s marks, for which Heritage claimed priority of use. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) found that Heritage’s prior-use marks were not protectable because they were highly descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness, and dismissed the opposition.The Board determined that Heritage had begun using its iVoterGuide marks well before APR’s first use date. However, the Board found that APR effectively conceded likelihood of confusion. Despite this, the Board ruled that Heritage’s prior-use marks were not protectable as trademarks because they were highly descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness. The Board found that the marks were highly descriptive as they clearly described the service offered, and that Heritage’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness was insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court affirmed the Board’s findings that the iVoterGuide marks were highly descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness. The court found that the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the descriptive nature of the marks and the limited additional evidence of acquired distinctiveness. The court concluded that the Board’s decision to dismiss the opposition was correct and affirmed the dismissal. View "HERITAGE ALLIANCE v. AMERICAN POLICY ROUNDTABLE " on Justia Law