On October 3, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would not take up an appeal by the Washington Redskins regarding the constitutionality of a Lanham Act provision that prevents registration of trademarks that disparage “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.” See 15 U.S.C. §1052(a).
Tagged: Trademark Litigation
With the close of the United States Supreme Court’s 2014-15 term, we offer this wrap up of the Court’s term, focusing on the Court’s most important business and commercial cases (excluding patent cases). Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund: It is widely known that if the registration statement an issuer files with the SEC contains an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, then a purchaser of securities sold pursuant to the registration statement may sue the issuer for damages.
In a 7-2 split decision issued on March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) rulings may have preclusive effects in subsequent federal district court litigation. The Court ruled that so long as the elements of issue preclusion are met, it is irrelevant that the TTAB is not an Article III court.
Judge Preska of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently awarded attorneys’ fees, damages, and prejudgment interest on damages, but not fees to defendants, in a trademark counterfeiting case. In Prince of Peace Enterprises, Inc. v. Top Quality Food Market, LLC, Judge Preska adopted in part a report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Maas, ending an eight-year litigation surrounding ex parte seizures of herbal supplements which took place in 2007.
In Trademark Infringement Matters, Think Twice Before Waiting. Laches May Run from the Date of the Product Announcement, Before the Initial Sales
Fitbit and Fitbug are makers of activity trackers, which are wearable tracking devices that connect to the internet and provide users with feedback about their fitness, quality of sleep, and other personal metrics. Fitbug’s U.S. trademark rights to FITBUG date back to 2004, when the British device maker filed an intent to use application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which registered in 2009. Fitbug began selling its products in United States commerce since at least as early as 2005. Fitbit, on the other hand, filed a trademark application for FITBIT in August 2008 and announced its product launch the following month. However, Fitbit did not begin shipping its products using the trademark FITBIT until September 2009.
The U.S. Supreme Court does not get to tackle trademark law issues very often. The decision in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, (No. 13-1211; January 21, 2015) is the first pronouncement of the highest Court on trademark matters in more than a decade, and it deals with the issue known as tacking. Trademarks often experience changes in appearance and overall look in the course of many years. These changes can take various forms, such as a modification in lettering style, a rearrangement in the order of words, the dropping of a background design, or the addition of new stylized elements. The tacking doctrine allows a party to claim the earlier priority date of an old mark for a new trademark, if the later involves slight changes over the prior version. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hana Financial addresses narrowly the question as to whether tacking is a matter of law reserved to a judge, or a matter of fact decided by a jury.
Industry-specific trade shows offer manufacturers the opportunity to market their products and keep tabs on trends in their industry. However, these shows also provide an opportunity for manufacturers to identify counterfeit models of its products offered on the market. Bond Manufacturing (“Bond”), which produces outdoor heating units, arrived at the 2013 National Hardware Show in Las Vegas and discovered counterfeit versions of its products being exhibited at a nearby booth. Bond’s president was assisting with setting up the company’s booth when he noticed goods bearing Bond’s trademark at an exhibition booth operated by Bond’s previous business partner, Xiamen Hwaart Composite Material. The counterfeit goods included various products, including patio heaters, fire pits, and fireplaces. Combating counterfeiters is part of the daily routine for manufacturers like Bond, but identifying the sources of counterfeit products is typically challenging in the age of Internet commerce as counterfeiters are rarely bold enough to market their ersatz products out in the open in the light of day, particularly when the counterfeiter is your former business partner.
We previously posted on the new deadline of 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time for all filings other than initial pleadings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On October 15, 2014, Chief Judge Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware issued a letter addressing certain questions about the new rule. Chief Judge Stark reiterated that filings and service must be completed by 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and further indicated that this rule applies to all filing and service deadlines — including service of discovery materials — in every case in the District of Delaware, other than initial pleadings or those cases in Bankruptcy Court.
On October 2, 2014, Chief Judge Leonard Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware announced a new deadline of 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time for all filings other than initial pleadings. As of October 16, 2014, “[a]side from initial pleadings, all electronic transmissions of documents (including, but not limited to, motions, briefs, appendices, and discovery responses) must be completed by 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time, in order to be considered timely filed and served that day.” Initial pleadings which are filed before midnight will still be considered timely.
On September 17, 2014, the Second Circuit issued its long awaited decision in Gucci America, Inc. et. al. v. Li et. al., 2014 WL 4629049 (Appeal Nos. 11-3934 & 12-4557). In its decision, the Court vacated and remanded an August 2011 order compelling nonparty Bank of China (BOC) to comply with a document subpoena and asset freeze provision in an injunction and a May 2012 order denying the bank’s motion to reconsider. The court also reversed a November 2012 decision holding the bank in contempt for non-compliance with the court’s August 2011 order and imposing civil penalties.