Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

Skydive Arizona sued SKYRIDE for false advertising, trademark infringement, and cybersquatting. SKYRIDE subsequently appealed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment, the jury's actual damages and profits awards, and the district court's damages enhancement. Skydive Arizona cross-appealed the district court's limitation of the permanent injunction to Skydive Arizona, and sought a nationwide injunction against SKYRIDE. The court reversed with regard to the district court's doubling of actual damages, and reinstated the jury's original actual damages award for false advertising, and for trademark infringement. The court affirmed the district court on all other claims. Thus, as modified in actual damages for false advertising, $2.5 million in actual damages for trademark infringement, $2,500,004 in lost profits for trademark infringement, and $600,000 in statutory damages for cybersquatting. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and modified in part.View "Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrochi, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this action alleging trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 114(1); federal unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); unfair competition and deceptive trade practices under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), N.C.Gen. Stat. 75-1.1, thereby challenging the use of its federally-registered AGRI-NET trademark by defendants. Plaintiff appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants on its affirmative defense of laches. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining that defendants established its defense as a matter of law, and, separately, in failing to consider whether laches barred plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.View "Ray Communications, Inc. v. Clear Channel Comm., Inc., et al." on Justia Law

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed an examining attorney's refusal to register the trademark XCEED, in standard character form, for agricultural seed, citing the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(d). A previously-registered word and design mark for agricultural seeds consisted of the characters X-Seed in stylized form. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding substantial evidence that the XCEED mark would likely cause confusion with the X-Seed mark. View "In re Viterra" on Justia Law

Since at least 1995, Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. (plaintiff) has used the mark “COMMUNITY TRUST” to promote its services; it included this mark on its website since 1998. Defendants, Community Trust Financial Corporation, and two subsidiaries, Community Trust Bank and Community Trust Bank of Texas, use the marks “COMMUNITY TRUST” and “COMMUNITY TRUST BANK,” and display these marks on their website. Defendants’ contacts with Kentucky are limited. They have branch offices exclusively in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and limit their advertising and marketing campaigns to those states; they have no officers, directors, employees, agents, or any other physical presence in Kentucky. They do have customers who moved to Kentucky and continue to maintain their bank accounts from there. Three or four account owners, while residing in Kentucky, requested passwords to access the Defendants’ online banking website. Plaintiff brought a claim of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1), and state law. The district court denied a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit reversed, stating that the cause of action only tangentially related to defendants’ acts, providing passwords, within the forum state. View "Cmty. Trust Bancorp, Inc. v. Cmty Trust Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

DuoProSS and Inviro sell medical syringes designed to prevent accidental needle sticks. A person using an Inviro syringe: rotates the plunger; pulls the plunger back, drawing the needle into the syringe barrel; and snaps off the plunger, sealing the needle inside. Inviro owns the two trademarks at issue: the “SNAP! design mark,” for use with “ medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection syringes” and the “SNAP SIMPLY SAFER mark,” for use with “cannulae; medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection needles; medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection syringes.” Inviro petitioned to cancel a trademark registration owned by DuoProSS for the design mark BAKSNAP, for use with a “safety syringe for medical use.” DuoProSS counterclaimed for cancellation of several Inviro registrations, including the marks at issue. Inviro withdrew its petition and agreed to voluntarily surrender one registration. The Board concluded that other registrations for the SNAP mark in typed format were merely descriptive and ordered cancellation, but declined to cancel the SNAP! design mark and the SNAP SIMPLY SAFER word mark. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board failed to consider one of the marks as a whole, unduly focusing on one portion (!) and erroneously concluded that puffing could render the marks more than descriptive.View "Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med.Devices, Ltd." on Justia Law

Eureka Water Company contended that a 1975 agreement granted it the exclusive license in 60 Oklahoma counties to sell spring water and other products using the "Ozarka" trademark. It sued Nestle Waters North America, Inc., the current owner of the Ozarka trademark, to obtain a declaratory judgment of that right and to obtain monetary relief under several theories, including breach of contract, tortious interference with business relations, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. A jury found for Eureka on its contract and tortious interference claims, and the district court entered a judgment declaring that the 1975 agreement granted Eureka the exclusive right that it claimed in the Ozarka mark. In a post-verdict ruling, the district court denied as duplicative Eureka's equitable claims based on unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel. Nestle appealed. The Tenth Circuit agreed with most of Nestle's principal arguments. First, the Court reversed the district court's denial of Nestle's motion for JMOL on the contract claim because the 1975 agreement unambiguously did not cover spring water and under Oklahoma contract law. The Court reversed the denial of JMOL on the tortious-interference claim because Eureka failed to show that Nestle's decision to charge Eureka what it charged other vendors for bottled water was not privileged or justified. Third, the Court affirmed the denial of Eureka's unjust enrichment claim because the claim is based on the false premise that Eureka's license to use the Ozarka trademark covers spring water. The Court reversed, however, the denial of Eureka's promissory-estoppel claim, and remanded that claim for further consideration by the district court. View "Eureka Water Company v. Nestle Waters North America" on Justia Law

In 1998, the U.S.PTO issued Registration 334 to WJ for the mark LENS in connection with “computer software featuring programs used for electronic ordering of contact lenses in the field of ophthalmology, optometry and opticianry.” In 2001, Lens.com, an online retailer of contact lenses applied for the mark LENS in connection with “retail store services featuring contact eyewear products rendered via a global computer network.” The PTO cited the 334 Registration as a bar based on likelihood of consumer confusion and refused registration of the mark as merely descriptive of services. In 2002, WJ assigned the registration to Lens.com, which withdrew its cancellation petition under a settlement agreement and obtained the 334 Registration for the mark LENS in connection with “computer software featuring programs used for electronic ordering of contact lenses in the field of ophthalmology, optometry and opticianry.” In 2008, 1-800 Contacts filed Cancellation 925 alleging that Lens.com abandoned or fraudulently obtained the mark LENS because Lens.com never sold or otherwise engaged in the trade of computer software. The Board granted summary judgment of abandonment on the ground that the software is merely incidental to sale of contact lenses, and is not a “good in trade,” solicited or purchased in the market for its intrinsic value.’” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc." on Justia Law

Flowers Bakeries Brands, Inc. brought suit against Interstate Bakeries Corporation (IBC) for trademark infringement, among other claims, alleging that IBC'S NATURE'S PRIDE and NATURE'S CHOICE trademarks in connection with packaged breads were confusingly similar to Flowers' NATURE'S OWN trademark. When OneBeacon Insurance Company, IBC's insurer, refused to defend IBC in the underlying lawsuit, IBC initiated this action seeking a declaration that OneBeacon had a duty to defend IBC. At issue was whether the trademarked phrase NATURE'S OWN was a title or slogan under IBC's advertising insurance policy with OneBecaon. The district court entered judgment in favor of OneBeacon. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that OneBeacon did not have a duty to defend IBC in the underlying litigation, as Flowers failed to allege facts that would indicate the phrase NATURE'S OWN was potentially a title or slogan under the policy. View "Interstate Bakeries Corp. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Nestle’s BEGGIN’ STRIPS registered mark for pet treats has been in continuous use since 1988 and has been registered since 1989. Midwestern manufactures and sells pet treats and filed an intent-to-use application with the Patent and Trademark Office, seeking to register the mark WAGGIN’ STRIPS for pet food and edible pet treats. Nestle opposed registration, arguing likelihood of confusion between the two marks. The district court ruled in favor of Nestle, finding likelihood of confusion. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court properly admitted evidence submitted by Nestle. View "Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A." on Justia Law

In 1957, Dominic opened an Italian restaurant, “Dominic’s.” It closed in 2007, but daughter-in-law, Anne, continues to market “Dominic’s Foods of Dayton.” In 2007, Christie, a granddaughter, contracted to operate a restaurant with Powers and Lee, a former Dominic’s chef. In pre-opening publicity, they promised to bring back original Dominic’s recipes. They named the business “Dominic’s Restaurant, Inc.” and registered with the Ohio Secretary of State. Anne brought claims of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair practices, unfair competition, tortious interference with contract, conversion, misappropriation of business property, breach of contract, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that defendants had engaged in infringing behavior before and after entry of a TRO. Powers and Lee later closed the restaurant and withdrew registration of the name, but motions continued, arising out of efforts to open under another name. The district court eventually granted default judgment against defendants, rejecting a claim that proceedings were automatically stayed by Powers’ bankruptcy filing. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The stay does not protect a debtor’s tortious use of his property and, while the stay would bar assessment of damages, it would not bar injunctive relief. View "Dominic's Rest. of Dayton, Inc. v. Mantia" on Justia Law