When a home goods company tried to register “SWIFT HOME” for its pillows and sheets, Taylor Swift was not about to shake it off. The intense (albeit brief) trademark showdown between Swift and Cathay Home offers a front-row seat to
** Drew Engel, a Summer Associate in NRF’s Minneapolis office, assisted with this article. Drew is supervised by attorneys who are licensed in the state of Texas.**
The Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Hetronic Int’l Inc. v. Hetronic Germany GmbH
** Logan Woodward, a Summer Associate in NRF’s Minneapolis Office, assisted with this article. Logan is supervised by attorneys who are licensed in the State of Texas. **
In June 2024, the Supreme Court held in Vidal v. Elster that
On June 29, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Abitron Austria GmbH, et al., v. Hetronic International, Inc. (No. 21-1043). We wrote about the case history previously here. Briefly, the 10th Circuit had upheld a $90 million
An opposition that has been making its way through the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) for several years appears to have finally reached its not-so-fairytale ending. In May 2023, the TTAB overturned a 2018 TTAB ruling in the same
The United States Supreme Court held oral arguments in connection with a dispute between Jack Daniel’s and VIP Products LLC (“VIP”) over a humorous dog toy which is intended to mimic the label of a Jack Daniel’s whisky bottle. Jack
The United States Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday, March 21, 2023, on the international limitations, if any, of the Lanham Act. In Abitron Austria GmbH, et al., v. Hetronic International, Inc. (No. 21-1043), the Court heard arguments not only
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
The Eleventh Circuit just ruled that a standard-setting-body’s interpretation of its own standards is an opinion that cannot support Lanham Act false advertising liability. Warren Technology, Inc. v. UL LLC, __ F.3d __, No. 18-14976, 2020 WL 3406585 (11th
Another chapter in the Outlaw Laboratories litigation drama has ended with another defeat for Outlaw.
In 2018 the FDA warned consumers that some “Rhino” products—supplements that compete with Outlaw’s own “male enhancement” supplements—were adulterated with the active ingredients found in