Remove 2013 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Trademark
article thumbnail

Using dominant competitor's part names/numbers for comparison isn't false advertising, TM infringement, or (c) infringement

43(B)log

15, 2023) Simpson sued its competitor MiTek for using Simpson part numbers for structural connectors/fasteners for use in the construction industry in its catalogs/other promotional material; the court here, after a nonjury trial before the magistrate judge, rather comprehensively rejects its false advertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It

article thumbnail

Top Trademark Trends of 2022

Erik K Pelton

The year saw many trademark stories in the news as backlogs continued at the USPTO even while application filing numbers dropped from their all time highs during the two previous years. Here are the biggest trademark stories of 2022 that we have been following at EMP&A. Celebrity trademark messes. Queen of Christmas.

Trademark 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Inter American Convention allows claims that Lanham Act makes dubious after Abitron; but what about Article III?

43(B)log

27, 2023) Industria sued Latinfood for trademark and copyright infringement; Latinfood counterclaimed for tortious interference against Industria and another counterdefendant Cordialsa. Advertisements made for Latinfood Zenú products used the phrase “una deliciosa tradición,” which translates to “a delicious tradition.” Latinfood U.S.

article thumbnail

maintaining outdated article on website about former supplier wasn't false association

43(B)log

Whole Foods allegedly used and continued to use a photograph of this event in its advertising materials “to show Defendants’ purported commitment to local farms and giving back to the local community.” False advertising: Plaintiffs didn’t plausibly plead a false or misleading statement in a commercial advertisement or promotion.

article thumbnail

when is a trademark licensee's use of a TM deceptive to consumers?

43(B)log

9, 2022) Interesting case about trademark preemption. Its maker, Applica, paid royalties to Black & Decker for the right to use the name and trademarks in selling small kitchen appliance. “[A] Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. A-1-CA-38023, 2022 WL 3221810, -- P.3d The coffeemaker evidently proved unsatisfactory, and the Pumas sued.

article thumbnail

grudge litigation over warranties with no harm leads to fee award

43(B)log

The complaint alleged that Tranik posted watch manufacturer trademarks and logos on AuthenticWatches.com but did not disclose the watches were not eligible for authorized service from the manufacturer. Unsurprisingly, that triggered a federal lawsuit.

article thumbnail

A Bigger Exception to the Rule? Attorneys’ Fee Awards in Trademark Cases

Shades of Gray

Traditionally, attorneys’ fees were notoriously difficult for a prevailing party to recover in a trademark action. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. , [1] relaxed the applicable standard in construing the Patent Act’s identical fee-shifting provision and will likely result in a lower bar to the recovery of fees in trademark disputes.