This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The dispute dates back to 2014 when Jack Daniel’s sent a series of cease and desist letters to the toy company. In 2018 a district court judge ruled that the toy infringed Jack Daniel’s trademarks. The dog toy made by VIP Products LLC parodies Jack Daniel’s famous bottle, replacing “Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet.”.
Back in 2020, the famous Chinese brew company Tsingtao Beer filed an administrative complaint for trademark infringement against a smaller Chinese competitor for the use of recycled Tsingtao beer bottles. 57 of the Chinese Trademarklaw. 7) causing harm to other’s exclusive rights to use registered trademarks.”.
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that a trademark claim concerning “a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey” which, as a play on words, turns the words “Jack Daniels” into “Bad Spaniels” and the descriptive phrase “Old No. 3d, 1170, 1175-1176 (2020). [18]
Taco John’s registered the mark in 1989, and Gregory Hotel registered the mark for concurrent use in New Jersey in 2009 based on its common law use dating back to 1979. Taco John’s is reportedly notorious for sending cease-and-desist letters to those who use the mark. The Lanham Act, which governs U.S. § 1064.
Back in 2020, the famous Chinese brew company Tsingtao Beer filed an administrative complaint for trademark infringement against a smaller Chinese competitor for the use of recycled Tsingtao beer bottles. 57 of the Chinese Trademarklaw. 7) causing harm to other’s exclusive rights to use registered trademarks.”
. (“Jack Daniels”), which owns registered trademarks for “JACK DANIELS”, “OLD NO. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet” referencing dog urine because it infringed and tarnished its famous trademarks. Lemley, “Grounding TrademarkLaw Through Trademark Use,” 92 Iowa L.
. (“Jack Daniels”), which owns registered trademarks for “JACK DANIELS”, “OLD NO. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet” referencing dog urine because it infringed and tarnished its famous trademarks. Lemley, “Grounding TrademarkLaw Through Trademark Use,” 92 Iowa L.
Supreme Court issued numerous landmark decisions in 2020, among those—for trademark scholars and practitioners— Romag Fasteners, Inc. 10 According to Fossil, the equity courts historically required plaintiffs to establish willfulness, or its historical equivalent, to obtain a profits award in trademark disputes. 1492 (2020) (No.
Read Yogesh Byadwal’s post explaining what the case is about and how the court interpreted “technical effect” Playing from a “Safe Distance”: Analysing the Rule, its Roots and Application in India Image by wirestock on Freepik What is the “Safe Distance” rule in trademarklaw and how does it apply?
Ramsey is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. She writes and teaches in the trademarklaw area, and recently wrote a paper with Professor Christine Haight Farley that focuses on speech-protective doctrines in trademark infringement law.] By Guest Blogger Lisa P. Ramsey [Lisa P.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content