Sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act impose civil liability on any person who “use[s] in commerce” a trademark in a manner that “is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)(a); 15
Authorization of certain IP-related transactions in Russia
The ink was not even dry on the update regarding Russia-related IP issues that we published last week, when we learned of two more major developments.
The USPTO recently issued the following statement on engagement with Russia, the Eurasian Patent
Key current considerations in handling IP rights in Russia
February 24, 2022, Russian troops poured over the border into Ukraine, unleashing unimaginable human suffering and widespread destruction of property. Russia’s aggression also ignited negative consequences in the international economy that continue to increase and cascade throughout all sectors and
Late-night law may have big impact on IP owners
In a last minute effort to avoid a government shutdown, on December 21, 2020 Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.
Willfulness not required for profits awards in trademark infringement suits
A trademark infringement suit is not required to show willful infringement as a precondition to a disgorgement of the infringers’ profits.
Trademarks, Internet sales, and personal jurisdiction
On February 10, 2020, the Seventh Circuit federal appeals court ruled that an Illinois-based seller of dietary supplements could maintain a federal Lanham Act and Illinois state law claims against a California-based competitor that had only an online presence, and
Brexit: Initial considerations for trademark and design owners
Yesterday, Britain voted to leave the European Union. The exit will not happen immediately. It is likely to take at least two years after the process is actually triggered for the transition to be completed. For the time being it
Supreme Court holds TTAB decisions can have preclusive effect in subsequent infringement actions
Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark trademark decision holding that TTAB rulings on likelihood of confusion can have preclusive effect in subsequent federal court infringement actions. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 13-352, slip
US Supreme Court will not clarify the split in the circuits on the issue of presumption of irreparable harm in trademark preliminary injunction actions
Earlier this year, we wrote about the Ninth Circuit decision in Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc., in which the Ninth Circuit found that there is no presumption of irreparable harm in trademark preliminary injunction matters and
US Supreme Court to decide what level of deference given to TTAB decisions
Recently, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear a case that will determine what level of deference courts will give to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decisions on the likelihood of confusion between trademarks. B&B Hardware, Inc. v.