In a recent decision that illustrates the relevance of timing in evaluating the question of secondary meaning, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit breathed new life into Converse’s “Chuck Taylor” sneaker design trademark by vacating an earlier ruling by the International Trade Commission (ITC) invalidating protection for that same mark. Background Relying upon
Brands can use trademarks to gain a competitive advantage in today’s crowded marketplace. An iconic trademark can be one of your biggest assets; a core component of your identity; and a practical solution to prevent others profiting from your success. But navigating the complexities of trademark law around the world is a challenge for many brands.
Royal Crown Co., Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Co., 2018 WL 3040163 (Fed. Cir. June 20, 2018) In late June, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in the year-long litigation between Royal Crown Co., Inc. (“RC”) and The Coca-Cola Co. (“TCCC”) over the registrability and, correspondingly, the inherent protectibility of the term ZERO as applied to
Verisign, Inc. v. XYZ.COM, LLC, No. 17-1704, WL 2018 WL 2407644 (4th Cir. May 29, 2018) In this recent decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the requisite showing for obtaining an award of attorney fees under the Lanham Act. Reversing a decision out of the Eastern District of Virginia, the Fourth Circuit held
(Case analysis: Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC v. Ren Ventures Ltd., N.D. Cal., No. 17-7249, 4/24/18) To assert a successful infringement claim relative to a mark that has arguably never been used as a source identifier for “real world” products, and which has not been actively promoted for nearly 40 years, is a challenge most trademark lawyers