IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Trademarks
Subscribe to Trademarks's Posts

When Analyzing Likelihood of Confusion, It’s Not Just Location, Location, Location

by | Apr 3, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a district court’s decision finding no infringement that focused on only the geographic distance between the physical locations of the two users without considering the factors bearing on any likelihood of confusion. Westmont Living, Inc. v. Retirement Unlimited, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-2248 (4th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) (Niemeyer, Benjamin, Berner, JJ.)

Westmont Living, a California corporation that operates several retirement communities and assisted living facilities on the West Coast, sued Retirement Unlimited, a Virginia corporation that operates retirement communities and assisted living facilities on the East Coast, for trademark infringement. Westmont, which operates and markets its facilities using the mark WESTMONT LIVING, alleged that Retirement opened a new facility using the name The Westmont at Short Pump for services identical to those provided by Westmont.

The district court entered summary judgment for Retirement. The district court acknowledged that many factors are potentially relevant to determining the likelihood of confusion, but it concluded that because the parties’ physical facilities were located “in entirely distinct geographic markets,” as a matter of law “consumer confusion [was] impossible.” The district court based its holding on the Second Circuit’s 1959 decision in Dawn Donut v. Hart’s Food Stores, which held that when parties use their marks in separate and distinct markets, there can be no likelihood of confusion. Westmont appealed.

The Fourth Circuit found that the district court failed to address the parties’ competitive marketing, the locations from which they solicit and draw their customers, the scope of their reputations, and any of the nine factors for determining likelihood of confusion in the Fourth Circuit under its 2021 decision in RXD Media v. IP Application Dev. The Court explained that while not every factor necessarily needs to be considered in the analysis, the district court erred by relying solely on the fact that the parties’ physical facilities were on opposite coasts, without considering the many other factors that might bear on whether Westmont had shown a likelihood of confusion.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s reliance on Dawn Donut, explaining that the case stands for a narrow principle that where businesses use the same mark in physically distinct geographical markets, and their marketing and advertising are confined to those markets, there won’t be a likelihood of confusion. Given increased potential customer mobility, the internet, and the reduced influence of local radio and newspaper advertising, it is far less likely today that two businesses would operate in such physically distinct geographical markets as when the Dawn Donut rule was promulgated. In this case, both parties advertised nationwide on the internet. The Court noted that it may be especially difficult for a casual consumer to distinguish between the two companies when engaging in online research about retirement living, and the physical distance of the parties’ facilities does not eliminate that risk. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court’s reliance on only the geographic distance between the physical facilities of the two companies [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Zone of Natural Expansion Is a Shield, Not a Sword

by | Mar 27, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision to partially cancel trademarks, ruling that an opposition challenger could not use the zone of natural expansion doctrine to claim priority because the doctrine is strictly defensive. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Brittex Financial, Inc., Case No. 23-1375 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 19, 2025) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

Dollar Financial Group (DFG) is a loan financing and check cashing business that has used the mark MONEY MART since the 1980s. In 2012, DFG expanded and started using the mark in connection with pawn brokerage and pawn shop services. DFG registered MONEY MART for these new services in 2014. Brittex petitioned to cancel the registration on several grounds, including that the registrations were improperly issued in violation of the Lanham Act, which bars registration of a mark that “so resembles . . . a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Brittex has operated pawn shops under the names Money Mart Pawn and Money Mart Pawn & Jewelry since the 1990s and claimed prior common law rights to the MONEY MART mark for pawn services.

The Board ruled in favor of Brittex, finding that Brittex had priority over DFG for pawn services due to its earlier use of the mark. The Board also determined that DFG could not rely on the zone of natural expansion doctrine to establish priority because this doctrine is purely defensive and does not grant a proactive right to register a mark on an expanded line of goods or services. The Board also concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks, given their high similarity and the overlapping nature of the services provided by both parties. DFG appealed.

The Federal Circuit agreed that Brittex had established priority because it was the first to use the MONEY MART mark in connection with pawn services. The Court also rejected DFG’s zone of natural expansion argument, reiterating that the doctrine is defensive and cannot be used to establish priority offensively.

The doctrine of natural expansion, as explained in Orange Bang v. Ole Mexican Foods (TTAB 2015), states that:

[T]he first user of a mark in connection with particular goods or services possesses superior rights in the mark as against subsequent users of the same or similar mark for any goods or services which purchasers might reasonably expect to emanate from it in the normal expansion of its business under the mark.

However, the doctrine does not give the senior mark user an offensive or proactive use.

The Federal Circuit also addressed DFG’s argument regarding the doctrine of tacking, which allows trademark holders to make minor modifications to their own mark while retaining the priority position of the older mark. Tacking is generally permitted [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Bull: Historically Generic Term Can Become Non-Generic

by | Mar 20, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Trademark Trial & Appeal Board rulings, finding that a previously generic term was not generic at the time registration was sought because at that time the mark, as used in connection with the goods for which registration was sought, had achieved secondary meaning. Bullshine Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands, LLC, Case Nos. 23-1682; -1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

In 2015 Bullshine sought to register the trademark BULLSHINE FIREBULL for its line of “[a]lcoholic beverages except beers.” Sazerac, the owner of the FIREBALL marks used for liqueurs and whiskey, opposed registration. Sazerac argued that the registration of BULLSHINE FIREBULL would likely cause consumer confusion due to its similarity to Sazerac’s FIREBALL marks. Bullshine counterclaimed, asserting that the term “fireball” had become generic and was commonly used to describe a type of alcoholic drink, thus invalidating Sazerac’s claim to exclusivity.

The Board found that the FIREBALL mark was not generic either at the time of registration nor at the time of trial, and that BULLSHINE FIREBULL was not likely to cause confusion with Sazerac’s marks. The Board determined that the FIREBALL mark was “commercially strong but conceptually weak,” that the respective marks of Sazerac and Bullshine were dissimilar when considered in their entireties, and that Bullshine did not act in bad faith in choosing its marks. The Board denied Sazerac’s opposition to the BULLSHINE FIREBULL mark as well as Bullshine’s counterclaim that the FIREBALL mark was generic. Both parties appealed.

Bullshine argued that the Board applied the incorrect legal standard in finding FIREBALL not generic and that consequently, the finding of non-genericness (upon consideration of secondary meaning) was erroneous. Bullshine argued that since “fireball” was a generic term prior to Sazerac’s registration (as both parties agreed), that fact should have precluded Sazerac’s registration, and the Board erred in considering evidence of secondary meaning. Bullshine argued that if a term was generic at any time prior to registration, it remains generic, regardless of how it might be understood at the time of registration (i.e., once generic, always generic). Sazerac argued that the time to assess genericness is at the time of registration. The Federal Circuit agreed with Sazerac.

The Federal Circuit explained that the genericness inquiry is ultimately guided by “what consumers would think at the time of registration,” and that this ruling is supported by the statutory scheme of the Lanham Act. The Court explained that the Lanham Act, in addition to preventing registration of generic terms, also provides for cancellations of marks “[a]t any time,” and even marks with incontestable statuses can be challenged based on genericness. Therefore, Congress intended that the analysis of whether a term is generic can change over time, and Bullshine’s argument was inconsistent with the statute. This conclusion follows from the legal premise that impression of consumers is “necessarily contemporaneous with the time of registration.”

Bullshine cited the 1961 CCPA decision in Weiss Noodle in support of its argument that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Trade Dress Requires Separate Articulation and Distinctiveness Requirements

by | Feb 20, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for trade dress infringement and unfair competition, finding that the district court erred in requiring the plaintiffs to articulate distinctiveness of trade dress infringement at the pleading stage. Cardinal Motors, Inc. v. H&H Sports Protection USA Inc., Case No. 23-7586 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2025) (Chin, Sullivan, Kelly, JJ.)

Cardinal is a designer and licensor of motorcycle helmets. At issue was the “Bullitt” helmet, which Cardinal exclusively licenses to Bell Sports and is “one of the most popular helmets made by Bell.” H&H manufactures and sells the “Torc T-1” helmet. Both the Bullitt and Torc T-1 helmets have “flat and bubble versions,” feature “metallic borders around the bottom and front opening of the helmet,” and “share similar technical specifications.”

Cardinal sued H&H in September 2020, alleging unfair competition and trade dress infringement. Cardinal amended its complaint twice but both amended complaints were dismissed for failure “to adequately plead the claimed trade dress with precision or with allegations of its distinctiveness.” In Cardinal’s third amended complaint, it included two alternative trade dresses – a “General Trade Dress” and “Detailed Trade Dress” – which listed features of the Bullitt at different levels of detail.

Despite the amendment, the district court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. Based on the general trade dress, the district court reasoned that Cardinal failed to allege distinctiveness and therefore failed to allege a plausible trade dress claim. The district court extended its reasoning to “summarily conclud[e]” that the detailed trade dress also failed to articulate distinctiveness. Cardinal appealed.

Prior to making any determinations, the Second Circuit clarified that distinctiveness and the articulation requirement are separate inquiries, and that the articulation requirement is evaluated first. A plaintiff meets the articulation “requirement by describing with precision the components – i.e., specific attributes, details, and features – that make up its claimed trade dress.” The Court explained that the articulation requirement assists courts and juries to evaluate infringement claims, ensures the design is not too general to protect, and allows a court to identify what combination of elements would be infringing.

Focusing on distinctiveness, the Second Circuit explained that a trade dress plaintiff must specifically allege that its product design has acquired distinctiveness. Acquired distinctiveness is when the mark has a secondary meaning, where the public primarily associates the mark with the “source of the product rather than the product itself.” Separate from the elements of trademark, the plaintiff must meet the articulation requirement, which entails listing the components that make up the trade dress.

Having clarified the pleading requirements, the Second Circuit found de novo that the district court erred in mixing the articulation requirement with the distinctiveness requirement at the pleading stage. The Second Circuit determined that the district court erred in dismissing Cardinal’s complaint for failure to meet the articulation requirement. The Court found that Cardinal met the articulation requirement because the general trade dress was “sufficiently [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Dog Toy Maker in the Doghouse (Again) for Tarnishing Jack Daniel’s Marks

by | Feb 6, 2025 |

Addressing this case for the third time, the US District Court for the District of Arizona found on remand that Jack Daniel’s was entitled to a permanent injunction after finding that VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy diluted Jack Daniel’s trademark and trade dress, despite VIP not having infringed those marks. VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc., Case No. CV-14-02057-PHX-SMM (D. Ariz. Jan. 21, 2025).

This case began more than 10 years ago when VIP filed a declaratory judgment action that its “Bad Spaniels” Silly Squeaker dog toy did not infringe or dilute Jack Daniel’s trademark rights. Jack Daniel’s counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement and dilution. The district court initially entered a permanent injunction against VIP, finding that VIP’s “Bad Spaniels” toy violated and tarnished Jack Daniel’s trademarks and trade dress. VIP appealed, and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that VIP’s use of “Bad Spaniels” was protected expressive speech under the First Amendment. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to VIP on infringement and dilution. Jack Daniel’s appealed, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the heightened protection afforded by the First Amendment does not apply where the contested mark is used as a trademark. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded for further consideration. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine whether VIP’s use of “Bad Spaniels” tarnished and/or infringed Jack Daniel’s trademarks and trade dress, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

On remand, VIP attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s cause of action for dilution by tarnishment, arguing that “the statute amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by enjoining the use of a mark that ‘harms the reputation’ of a famous mark.” Ultimately, the district court did not consider the merits of the constitutional challenge. The district court stated that although it was not precluded from considering VIP’s constitutional challenge, the issue was not properly before the court because VIP had not amended its pleadings to assert the challenge.

The district court assessed dilution by tarnishment using a three-factor analysis of fame, similarity, and reputational harm. With respect to fame, the parties did not dispute that the JACK DANIEL’S mark was famous. Nonetheless, VIP contended that Jack Daniel’s had not shown tarnishment of a famous mark by a “correlative junior mark.” Specifically, VIP argued that the famous JACK DANIEL’S mark correlated with VIP’s “Bad Spaniels,” and VIP’s use of “Old. No. 2” correlated with Jack Daniel’s mark “Old No. 7.” According to VIP, there could be no tarnishment because only the latter was offensive and Jack Daniel’s had not demonstrated that “Old. No. 7” was a famous mark. The district court disagreed with VIP’s correlative mark argument, stating, “it is VIP’s use of Jack Daniel’s marks – on a poop-themed dog chew toy – that Jack Daniel’s claims tarnish its trademarks, not ‘Bad Spaniels’ itself [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Rules Are Rules, Especially in Trademark Proceedings

by | Feb 6, 2025 |

The Commissioner for Trademarks recently issued a precedential decision terminating a reexamination proceeding for the registrant’s failure to respond within a statutory time period, where there was insufficient justification to waive the response requirement. In re Trigroup USA LLC, Reg. No. 7094794 (Jan. 24, 2025) (Gooder, Comm’r for Trademarks)

The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA) created two new trademark proceedings: expungement and reexamination. The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) began accepting petitions for these proceedings in 2021. The reexamination proceeding must be filed within the first five years after the registration of a trademark and can only be filed against applications filed on the basis of use (§ 1(a)) or intent to use (§ 1(b)). The proceeding questions whether the mark was in use by a certain date:

  • In the case of a use-based application, the mark must have been in use on all the goods or services identified in the application by the filing date of the application.
  • In the case of an intent-to-use application, the mark must have been in use on all the goods or services identified in the application by either the date the Allegation of Use was filed or the deadline for filing the Statement of Use.

A party filing for reexamination must submit evidence that the mark was not in use by those relevant dates.

When the PTO institutes a reexamination proceeding, it issues an Office Action providing the registrant with the opportunity to rebut the claims of non-use. The rules require a response within three months of the Office Action issue date, and failure to respond results in the cancellation of the registration.

Here, the registrant did not respond to the Office Action, and the PTO cancelled the registration. The registrant then filed a Petition to the Director requesting reinstatement of the registration. Such a petition is required to include a response to the original Office Action. However, in this case, the registrant did not provide such a response, and on that basis the Commissioner found that the Petition should not be granted.

The Commissioner further found that even if the petition had included a complete response, it did not set forth sufficient facts to justify a late response. Trademark Rule 2.146(a)(5) permits the Director to waive any requirement of the rules that is not mandated by statute only “in an extraordinary situation, when justice requires, and no other party is injured.” 37 C.F.R. § 2.146(a)(5).

The registrant explained that it had an ongoing matter in China and the failure to respond was due to inadvertent error because it was dealing with the Chinese matter. The Commissioner found that this was not an extraordinary circumstance. The registrant also explained that cancellation of the registration would hinder its ongoing efforts in China and prevent it from manufacturing its products there. The Commissioner found that justice did not require the waiver of the PTO rules just because there would be harm to the registrant: “a party cannot be excused from the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Beach Buggy Battle: Stipulation Insufficient to Establish Trademark Distinctiveness

by | Jan 30, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that a district court does not need to accept both parties’ stipulation that a mark is distinctive but instead is permitted to make an evidentiary inquiry in determining whether the mark is distinctive or generic. Moke America LLC v. Moke Int’l Ltd., Case No. 23-1634 (4th Cir. Jan. 15, 2025) (King, Groh, JJ.) (Richardson, J., dissenting).

Starting in the 1960s, British Motor Corporation (BMC) sold vehicles colloquially referred to as “Mokes” in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Portugal. By the time BMC ceased production in 1993, Mokes had garnered a small but devoted following for use as beach buggies in the United States, the Caribbean, and Australia.

In August 2015, Moke International and Moke USA sold their first vehicle using the MOKE mark and subsequently sought trademark registration. One year later, Moke America began US sales of vehicles using the MOKE mark. Both parties described their vehicles as being reengineered and redesigned versions of the BMC Moke.

The present dispute began when Moke America opposed Moke International and Moke USA’s registration based on priority use of the MOKE mark. The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board dismissed the opposition. Moke America then filed a district court complaint seeking a declaration of trademark ownership and asserting trademark infringement. Moke International and Moke USA counterclaimed for a declaration of trademark ownership and trademark infringement, as well as affirmance of the Board’s dismissal.

A party claiming ownership of a mark bears the burden of proving distinctiveness. A generic term is not distinctive. Generic terms in trademark law are those that describe a genus or class of which a particular product is a member, such as “CONVENIENT STORE retail stores, DRY ICE solid carbon dioxide, and LIGHT BEER ale-type beverages.” Generic terms can never be protected. The purpose of denying protection for these terms is to safeguard the public from having commonly used words and phrases removed from the “linguistic commons.” Certain marks that are originally distinctive may become generic through the public’s pervasive use of the term through a process known as “genericide.” Genericide occurs when the trademark ceases to identify the particular source of a product or service to the public and instead identifies a class of product or service. Common examples include ASPIRIN and ESCALATOR.

Since both parties sought ownership of the MOKE mark, the parties stipulated that the mark was distinctive and not generic. The district court found that a stipulation was insufficient and noted that the parties must set forth evidence that the mark was distinctive and not generic. The district court concluded that MOKE was once inherently distinctive but had become generic before either party sold a vehicle bearing the MOKE mark. Both parties appealed.

Seeking to overturn the district court’s finding of genericness, the parties argued that the district court was required to accept their stipulation of the MOKE mark’s distinctiveness. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that blindly accepting a stipulation was incompatible with the court’s role of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Lager Than Life: $56 Million Verdict in Beer Trademark Dispute Still on Tap

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a $56 million trial verdict in a trademark dispute, finding that the evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that a beer company’s rebranding of one its beers infringed a competitor’s trademark. Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC, Case No. 23-3142 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024) (Graber, Friedland, Bumatay, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Stone Brewing sued Molson Coors in 2018 alleging that Molson changed its packaging of Keystone Light to emphasize the word “stone” in its “Own the Stone” marketing campaign, and that this change infringed Stone Brewing’s trademarks and caused consumer confusion. Molson raised a variety of defenses, all of which were rejected. A jury found infringement and ultimately awarded Stone Brewing $56 million. Molson appealed.

Molson argued that the district court erred in finding that the four-year laches clock did not bar Stone Brewing’s Lanham Act claims. The Ninth Circuit found that the laches clock began running in 2017 when Molson launched the “Own the Stone” campaign, to which all of Stone Brewing’s claims related. The Court noted that prior to 2017, Molson never referred to Keystone as anything other than Keystone in its packaging, marketing, or advertising materials, and specifically never broke up the product name “Keystone” and used the term “Stones” to refer to the number of beers in a case (“30 stones”) or as a catch phrase (e.g., “Hold my Stones”). Thus, the Court found that Stone Brewing brought the suit within the four-year statute of limitations period.

Molson also argued that the district court erred in refusing to set aside the jury verdict on the ground that Molson had a superior interest in the STONE mark. Stone Brewing applied to register the STONE mark in 1996, and the Ninth Circuit found there was substantial evidence that Molson did not approve production of packaging that used “Stone” before that date.

Molson argued that the district court erred in refusing to set aside the jury verdict on likelihood of confusion. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, explaining that Stone Brewing provided evidence from which a jury could plausibly conclude there was “actual confusion” by distributors and customers who thought that Stone Brewing sold Keystone Light. The Court noted that Molson expressly de-emphasized “Keystone” and instead highlighted “Stone” in its 2017 product refresh. The Court also explained that both brands compete in the same beer space, use the same marketing and distribution channels, and are relatively inexpensive products, all of which allowed the jury to plausibly conclude that Molson’s 2017 product refresh of Keystone Light was likely to cause consumer confusion.

Molson also challenged the damages award. At trial, Stone Brewing sought damages in three categories:

  • $32.7 million for past lost profits
  • $141.4 million for future lost profits
  • $41.8 million for corrective advertising.

The jury returned a verdict of $56 million in general damages, which was about one quarter of the requested damages, but did not indicate what amount came from each category. Molson argued that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Pink Is Not the New Black: See Functionality Doctrine

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision canceling trademarks for the color pink for ceramic hip components, stating that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the color pink as used in the ceramic components was functional. CeramTec GmbH v. CoorsTek Bioceramics LLC, Case No. 23-1502 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2025) (Lourie, Taranto, Stark, JJ.)

Trademarks cannot be functional. The functionality doctrine prevents the registration of useful product features as trademarks. As explained by the Supreme Court (1995) in Qualitex v. Jacobson Prods.:

The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm’s reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 173, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product’s functional features could be used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity).

CeramTec manufactures ceramic hip components made from zirconia-toughened alumina (ZTA) ceramic containing chromium oxide (chromia). The addition of chromia gives the ceramic a characteristic pink color. CeramTec obtained trademarks for the pink color as used in these components. CoorsTek Bioceramics, a competitor, challenged the trademarks, arguing that the pink color of the ceramic was functional. The Board agreed, finding that the pink color was functional because it resulted from the addition of chromia, which provided material benefits to the ceramic, such as increased hardness. CeramTec appealed.

The Federal Circuit applied the four-factor Morton-Norwich (CCPA 1982) test to determine functionality:

  • Existence of a utility patent
  • Advertising materials
  • Availability of functionally equivalent designs
  • Comparatively simple or cheap manufacture.

The Federal Circuit found the first and second Morton-Norwich prongs were strongly in CoorsTek’s favor, as CeramTec held multiple patents that disclosed the functional benefits of chromia, such as toughness, hardness, and stability of the ZTA ceramic. Similarly, the Court found that CeramTec had multiple advertising materials that promoted its product’s functional advantages.

The Federal Circuit found that there was no evidence of alternative designs that were functionally equivalent to the pink ZTA ceramic, rendering the third factor neutral. The Court also found the fourth factor neutral because there was conflicting evidence regarding whether chromia reduced manufacturing costs.

Finally, CeramTec argued that CoorsTek should be precluded from challenging the trademarks based on the doctrine of unclean hands. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the Board spoke too strongly in suggesting that the unclean hands defense is categorically unavailable in functionality proceedings but found any error to be harmless. The Court confirmed that the Board had adequately considered the defense and found it inapplicable in this case.



read more

Equity Is Neither a “Good” Nor a “Service” Under Lanham Act

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that, in terms of trademark use in commerce, corporate equity is not a “good” or “service” under the Lanham Act. LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, PC v. LegalForce, Inc., Case No. 23-2855 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2024) (Thomas, Wardlaw, Collins, JJ.) (Collins, J., concurring).

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide is a California corporation that operates legal services websites and owns the US mark LEGALFORCE. LegalForce, Inc., is a Japanese corporation that provides legal software services and owns the Japanese mark LEGALFORCE.

Both parties had discussions with the same group of investors. After those meetings, LegalForce Japan secured $130 million in funding, while LegalForce USA received nothing. Thereafter, LegalForce USA brought several claims against LegalForce Japan, including a trademark infringement claim. To support its case, LegalForce USA cited LegalForce Japan’s expansion plan, a trademark application for the mark LF, website ownership, and the use of LEGALFORCE to sell and advertise equity shares to investors in California.

The district court dismissed claims related to the website for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed claims related to the US expansion plan, trademark application, and alleged software sales in the United States as unripe. The district court dismissed the trademark infringement claims related to the efforts to sell equity shares for failure to state a claim. The court found that advertising and selling equity cannot constitute trademark infringement because it is not connected to the sale of goods or services, and the case did not present justification for extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act. LegalForce USA appealed.

To state a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, plaintiffs must show that:

  • They have a protectible ownership interest in the mark, or for some claims, a registered mark
  • The defendant used the mark “in connection with” goods or services
  • That use is likely to cause confusion. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), § 1125(a).

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that LegalForce Japan had not used LegalForce USA’s mark “in connection with” goods or services, and thus LegalForce USA failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that using LEGALFORCE to advertise and sell equity failed to satisfy the requirement that a defendant used the mark in connection with goods or services. Referring to the U.C.C., the Court explained that corporate equity is “not a good for purposes of the Lanham Act, because it is not a movable or tangible thing.” Equity is also not a service because it is not a performance of labor for the benefit of another. There is no “another” involved because those who buy LegalForce Japan equity are owners and so they are not legally separate “others.”

The Ninth Circuit also agreed with the district court that LegalForce Japan’s services in Japan did not satisfy the “in connection with” goods or services requirement under the Lanham Act. To determine when a statute applies extraterritorially, courts invoke the 2023 Supreme Court
Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES