Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

A clothing company filed a lawsuit against multiple e-commerce vendors, including a Chinese company, alleging trademark infringement, counterfeiting, unfair competition, and related claims under the Lanham Act. The defendants were identified in a document attached to the complaint. Because the defendants were primarily Chinese entities operating online, the plaintiff asserted it was difficult to determine their exact identities and addresses. The plaintiff sought and was granted permission by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to serve the defendants by email, which included sending a link to the complaint and other documents. The defendant, Hangzhou, engaged in settlement discussions but did not appear in court, leading to a default judgment. The court’s order also allowed the plaintiff to collect funds from third parties, including from Hangzhou’s Amazon account.After the plaintiff collected a portion of the judgment, Hangzhou appeared and moved to vacate the default judgment, primarily arguing that service by email in China was prohibited under the Hague Service Convention and thus the judgment was void for lack of proper service. The district court denied this motion, concluding that the Convention permits email service in China, and rejected other arguments related to Illinois post-judgment procedures.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that the Hague Service Convention prohibits service by email in China, contrary to the district court’s conclusion. However, the appellate court determined that the district court must first decide whether the Convention applies to this case, specifically whether the defendant’s address was “not known,” which would render the Convention inapplicable. The Seventh Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s decision denying the motion to vacate the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve this threshold issue. View "Kangol LLC v Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

A trademark holder brought an action against numerous foreign online vendors, alleging that they infringed her registered mark by selling counterfeit goods through e-commerce platforms such as Walmart.com and eBay.com. The vendors, all based in China, operated online storefronts that were accessible from the United States and offered shipping to U.S. customers, including those in Illinois. The plaintiff attached a “Schedule A” list to her complaint identifying the vendors. The defendants did not initially appear in the case.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, entered a default judgment against the defendants. The court found personal jurisdiction over them on the basis that they operated online stores targeting U.S. consumers, offered shipping to Illinois, and had allegedly sold infringing products to Illinois residents. The evidence supporting the finding of Illinois sales included website screenshots showing that a product could be ordered and shipped to a Chicago address, but did not show that any actual sales to Illinois occurred. After the default judgment, the defendants appeared and moved to vacate the judgment, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service. The district court denied the motion, reaffirming its prior findings.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that there was no evidence of any actual sales to Illinois residents. The court held that merely operating an online store accessible in Illinois and offering shipping to Illinois, without completed sales in the forum, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. The district court’s findings to the contrary were clearly erroneous. The Seventh Circuit vacated the default judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Liu v. Monthly" 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

TWD, LLC filed a complaint against Grunt Style LLC in 2018, alleging trademark infringement. Both companies sell goods with military-related trademarks. Grunt Style counterclaimed, asserting TWD was infringing on its prior trademark. The district court granted Grunt Style's motion for partial summary judgment in April 2022, dismissing all of TWD's claims. The case was reassigned to Judge Hunt, who held a bench trial in 2024 and ordered TWD to pay Grunt Style $739,500. Grunt Style moved to amend the judgment to include interest and permanent injunctive relief, which the district court granted in January 2025.TWD filed a notice of appeal from the amended judgment, which was docketed as appeal No. 25-1305. During a preliminary review, the Seventh Circuit identified a potential jurisdictional issue because the district court's judgment did not explicitly address TWD's counterclaims. The court directed the parties to address whether the judgment was deficient. TWD filed an amended notice of appeal, which was docketed as a new appeal, No. 25-1341. The district court later issued an indicative ruling, signaling its intent to correct the judgment if the case was remanded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court's solution and decided to remand the case for correction of the clerical mistake in the judgment. The court retained jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed the second appeal (No. 25-1341) as unnecessary, without collecting an additional fee. The court emphasized the importance of clear and complete judgments to avoid jurisdictional issues and ensure appellate jurisdiction is clear. View "Grunt Style LLC v TWD, LLC" on Justia Law

Dyson Technology, Ltd., a UK-based company, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against multiple e-commerce stores for selling counterfeit Dyson products. Dyson sought remedies under the Lanham Act, which allows trademark holders to recover profits, damages, and costs from infringing parties. The defendants did not appear in court, leading to a default judgment in Dyson's favor. However, the district court awarded only $1,000 in statutory damages and denied Dyson's request to recover the infringing sellers' profits, stating that Dyson had only provided evidence of revenue, not profits.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, handled the initial case. The court's decision to limit Dyson's award was based on its interpretation that revenue and profits are not the same, and it declined to assume that all revenue equaled profits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the Lanham Act. According to the Act, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to the defendant's profits, and the defendant bears the burden of proving any costs or deductions. The appellate court found that Dyson's evidence of revenue was sufficient to establish profits, as the defendants did not provide evidence to the contrary. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the district court to adjust the award if deemed just based on the case's circumstances. View "Dyson Technology Limited v David 7 Store" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sells personal care kits. Plaintiff’s products include a line of “Minimergency Kits,” which come in small fabric bags designed to look like men’s Dopp Kits (a now-cancelled trademark for travel kits, originally for men’s shaving gear, used widely by the military in World War II). Urban Aid also sells personal care kits. It agreed to create a custom kit for a shoe distributor, for use in a sales promotion. The distributor wanted the kits to come in a bag similar to plaintiff’s bag and gave Urban Aid a picture of plaintiff’s bag to work from. After the distributor began its sales promotion, plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the shape and design of its bag were protected trade dress, that Urban Aid’s bag violated the Lanham Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Urban Aid’s bag tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s prospective business relations. The district court found that plaintiff’s claimed trade dress was functional as a matter of law and granted Urban Aid summary judgment on the Lanham Act and the related state-law claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed; the undisputed evidence shows that the claimed design features affect product quality. View "Arlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc." on Justia Law

In the 1980s, a wilderness guide, Maine developed and bottled an all-natural bug repellant under the mark “BUG OFF.” She did not conduct trademark searches. Maine sold BUG OFF at craft fairs, by catalog and website, and at trade shows. From 1992-1998, she took orders for BUG OFF from every state. In 1994, Smith & Hawken began carrying BUG OFF in its catalog and stores. In 1998 Chervitz, who later assigned to Kaz, filed an application for the BUG OFF trademark, which was registered in 2000. In 1999, Kaz sold millions of BUG OFF wristbands. In 2002, Maine sought to register the BUG OFF mark. The PTO refused, based on the Chervitz-Kaz registrations; Maine did not then assert pre-dating rights. In 2003, S.C. Johnson filed an intent-to-use application for the BUG OFF mark. Maine’s attorney communicated that she had used the mark since at least 1992. The PTO refused S.C. Johnson’s application. In 2007 Kaz assigned its rights to S.C. Johnson. In 2010, S.C. Johnson began using the mark. In 2011 Maine sold to Nutraceutical; S.C. Johnson’s application advanced to registration. S.C. Johnson sued Nutraceutical. Afte the bench trial, S.C. Johnson asserted that Nutraceutical had not shown continuous use after 2012. The court found that while Nutraceutical had proved that it was the senior user and was using the mark nationally from 1995-1998 and continued sales through 2012, it did “not demonstrate continued sales after 2012, which constitutes non-use for more than one year.” The Seventh Circuit reversed. The district court abused its discretion in considering the post-trial argument. Trademark ownership is not acquired by registration, but from prior appropriation and actual use in the market. View "S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Nutraceutical Corp." on Justia Law

Slep-Tone has filed more than 150 suits under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051, challenging the unauthorized copying and performance of its commercial karaoke files. In addition to the registered Sound Choice trademark, Slep-Tone claims ownership of distinctive trade dress, consisting of typeface, style, and visual arrangement of the song lyrics displayed in the graphic component of the accompaniment tracks; a display version of the Sound Choice mark; and the style of entry cues that are displayed to signal when singers should begin to sing. Slep-Tone alleges that it has used this trade dress for decades and that it is sufficiently recognizable to enable customers to distinguish a Slep-Tone track from a track produced by a competitor. The pub operators own hard drives containing allegedly illegitimate “bootleg” copies of Slep-Tone tracks and, allegedly, are improperly “passing off” the copies as genuine Slep-Tone tracks. The district court dismissed claims of trademark infringement, reasoning that the complaint did not plausibly suggest that the unauthorized use of Slep-Tone’s trademark and trade dress is likely to cause confusion among customers as to the source of any tangible good containing the tracks, a prerequisite to relief under either cited section of the Lanham Act. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Slep-Tone’s real complaint concerns theft, piracy, and violation of Slep-Tone’s media policy rather than trademark infringement. View "Phoenix Ent. Partners, LLC v. Rumsey" on Justia Law

Hyson USA and Hyson 2U are food distributors. Hyson USA is wholly owned by its president, Tansky, and has operated since 2006. Kaminskas was one of its managers. In 2012, Hyson USA encountered serious financial difficulty, culminating in the loss of its liability insurance, forcing the company to suspend operations. Months later, Kaminskas established Hyson 2U. Hyson USA transferred its branded inventory and equipment to the new company. Hyson 2U leased the warehouse from which Hyson USA had operated. Tansky then switched roles with Kaminskas and went to work at the new company. Hyson 2U operated in the same manner and in the same markets as Hyson USA. In 2014, Tansky was fired. He and Hyson USA, again operational, sued Hyson 2U and Kaminskas alleging trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The judge dismissed the trademark claims, citing acquiescence, and relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed, stating that acquiescence is a fact-intensive equitable defense that is rarely capable of resolution on a motion to dismiss. View "Hyson USA Inc. v. Hyson 2U, Ltd." on Justia Law

Hugunin first sold fishing tackle in Land O’ Lakes, Wisconsin, in 1997. Hugunin’s manufacturing enterprise now sells fishing tackle to retailers in several states. In 2000 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office registered LAND O LAKES as the trademark of his fishing tackle. A large agricultural cooperative named Land O’ Lakes is based in Minnesota and sells dairy products throughout the United States. It has used LAND O LAKES trademark since the 1920s. In 1997 the dairy company became the official dairy sponsor of a sport-fishing tournament and began advertising its products in fishing magazines. Three years later, having learned that Hugunin had registered LAND O LAKES as a trademark, the dairy company wrote him that he was infringing its trademark. He refused either to apply for a license or to give up the trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding was suspended pending the outcome of litigation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of Hugunin’s suit, stating “It’s hard to believe that a giant dairy company wants to destroy or annex Hugunin’s tiny fishing-tackle business, or that Hugunin’s tackle sales are being kept down by Land O’ Lakes’ having an identical trademark.” View "Hugunin v. Land O'Lakes, Inc." on Justia Law