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
trademark infringement
Choc it out: Lindt’s golden bunny granted trade mark recognition in the EU
It is well-established that a shape or colour alone can function as a trade mark, that is, a badge of origin indicating to consumers the source of the relevant goods or services. However, in practice, achieving the level of ubiquity…
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.…
Could the use of Punitive Damages be the way forward in China?


In September 2019, the Shanghai Pudong District People’s Court awarded triple punitive damages to Balanced Body Inc., which according to the Shanghai government news report was the first such award for a Shanghai Court to a foreign plaintiff.
Background
Balanced…
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…
Australian Trademarks Law Review – Edition 2
2018 marked the publication of the first Australian Trademarks Law Review from the Law Review series. The Law Review collates cross-border legal insights and analysis across a range of practice areas and is a useful resource for in-house counsel of…
Cryptocurrency and trademarks – a lesson in jurisdiction

On October 22, 2018, a federal trial court in Manhattan granted web services conglomerate Alibaba Group Holding Limited’s request for a preliminary injunction against several defendants that were offering cryptocurrency for sale, under the name “AlibabaCoin.” (Alibaba Group Holding…
Amended Australian IP laws receive Royal Assent with little fanfare


On 24 August 2018, the creatively named Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 1 and Other Measures) Bill 2018 quietly received Royal Assent, with some parts of the new Act entering into force the following day.
As the…
Changes proposed regarding parallel imports – An exhausting concept for Australian trade mark owners?
In this article, we consider;
- the changes to the Trade Marks Act proposed in respect of parallel imports which the Draft Explanatory Memorandum states are aimed at ensuring that the law “better meet[s] the objective of facilitating the parallel
…
The European Commission has its say: EU trade marks post-Brexit


On 28 February 2018, the European Commission released its draft withdrawal agreement setting out a proposal on the arrangements for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (Withdrawal Agreement). The full text of the Withdrawal Agreement can…