IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Results for "Fair use limitations"
Subscribe to Results for "Fair use limitations"'s Posts

Article III standing: Claims of future injury must be sufficiently tied to the claim limitations at issue

by | Apr 16, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a post-grant review (PGR) for lack of Article III jurisdiction, finding that the appellant failed to meet its burden to prove it would likely suffer an injury in fact. ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc., Case No. 2024-1831 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2026) (Moore, Lourie, Reyna J.J.)

Mobile advertising company Digital Turbine has a patent related to streamlined background processes for downloading and installing mobile applications. That patent is a continuation an earlier related patent which was invalidated during a prior PGR proceeding. Mobile advertising and app monetization platform ironSource once had a product on the market called Aura, which included “Click to Install” features. When faced with what it referred to as “veiled threats” of liability for infringement of the earlier patent, ironSource modified its Aura product – eventually removing it from the market – and petitioned the Patent Trial & Appeal Board for a PGR of the continuation patent’s claims 1 – 22.

During the PGR, the Board held that claims 1 – 22 were all unpatentable pursuant to its earlier decision in the earlier PGR but allowed Digital Turbine to amend the claims. In so doing, Digital Turbine included, among other changes, two narrowing limitations to the claims. The Board concluded that ironSource had not carried its burden of proving that the newly amended claims were unpatentable or ineligible for patent protection. ironSource appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit explained that while Article III standing is not required before the Board, it is required to sustain an appeal of the Board’s decisions. The burden is on the appellant to prove it meets the requirements for standing under federal law at the time of filing. Federal law requires an appellant to prove it has “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the [appellee], and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo. Specific to patent cases, the appellant must show concrete evidence of its intended future actions that pose a substantial risk of infringement or an assertion of infringement.

To meet this obligation, ironSource submitted a declaration by one of its senior directors. The declarant discussed past changes and concessions to the Aura product that ironSource had made in light of Digital Turbine’s patent rights. It also stated that ironSource intended to reintroduce the Aura product to the market. Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit held that ironSource failed to meet its burden of tying that potential product’s features to the patent’s amended claims. Instead, ironSource focused on the claims of the original, alleging that they were “substantially identical” to the continuation patent’s claims, i.e., the claims Digital Turbine had previously “threatened” against the company. The Court emphasized, however, that ironSource failed to account for the narrowing limitations in the amended claims and thus failed to prove a likely injury in fact from infringement of the substituted claims.

Finally, the Federal Circuit distinguished [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Sour Grapes: Attorney’s Oral Agreement Might Be Okay if Fair, Just, and Fully Advised

by | Feb 27, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that a district court erred in declaring on summary judgment that an attorney had no ownership interest in a winery because the alleged agreement was made orally. The Ninth Circuit explained that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the attorney could rebut the presumption against oral agreements by showing that the transaction was fair and just and that the client was fully advised. Schrader Cellars, LLC v. Roach, Case Nos. 23-15862; -15990 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2025) (Smith, Bennett, Johnstone, JJ.)

Fred Schrader is the former owner of Schrader Cellars (Cellars). Robert Roach is a Texas attorney who claims to have entered into an oral agreement with Schrader regarding the creation of another company, RBS LLC, which Roach asserts has an ownership interest in Cellars. After Schrader sold Cellars in 2017, Roach sued Schrader in Texas state court, claiming that the sale was improper. In 2021, Cellars filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking, among other things, a declaration that Roach did not have any ownership interest in Cellars. Roach asserted various counterclaims.

The district court granted summary judgment on Cellars’ request for declaratory relief and dismissed Roach’s counterclaims. The case proceeded to trial on Cellars’ remaining claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The district court instructed the jury that, as a matter of law, Roach had breached his fiduciary duties to Cellars, so the jury decided only the issue of harm. The jury found that Roach’s breach of fiduciary duty had harmed Cellars during the limitations period but did not award damages because of the “litigation privilege defense.” Roach appealed the summary judgment order.

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred in granting Cellars summary judgment. Roach argued that the district court erred in declaring that he had no ownership interest in Cellars via the purported RBS agreement. At summary judgment, Cellars argued that even if Roach’s version of the RBS oral agreement existed, Roach could not enforce it because it violated California Rules of Professional Responsibility, which require written advisories and disclosures. Relying on this provision, the district court concluded that even if an oral argument existed, it was unenforceable, and Roach therefore could not have any ownership interest in Cellars. The district court noted that although “[a]n attorney may rebut the presumption of undue influence by showing that ‘the dealing was fair and just,’ and ‘the client was fully advised[,]’ . . . Roach has made no such effort to rebut this presumption.”

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred because there were triable issues of fact concerning whether Roach rebutted the presumption regarding the alleged breach of his client duties. The Court explained that not only did Roach expressly argue fairness before the district court, but the basic facts of the case (when viewed in the light most favorable to Roach) demonstrated that the transaction was fair and just and that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

UK Court of Appeal Increases FRAND Rate, Applies It Outside Limitations Period

by | Aug 1, 2024 | ,

The UK Court of Appeal found that the UK High Court of Justice applied flawed reasoning in setting a global fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for a patent portfolio essential to 3G, 4G and 5G cellular technologies. Interdigital Tech Corp. et al. v. Lenovo Group Limited, Case Nos. CA-2023-001489; -001492 (July 12, 2024) (Arnold, Nugee, Birss, LJ.) The Court of Appeal not only concluded that a higher rate was appropriate but applied the rate to sales prior to the limitations period.

In March 2023, the High Court issued its decision in InterDigital v. Lenovo, concluding that Lenovo should pay InterDigital a FRAND rate of $0.175 per cellular unit for a worldwide license to InterDigital’s portfolio. The High Court also found that Lenovo should pay the FRAND rate for all previous unlicensed sales, even if those sales occurred before the statutory damages limitation period. The High Court calculated that the $0.175 rate yielded a lump sum payment from Lenovo to InterDigital of $138.7 million for sales from 2007 to the end of 2023. The High Court’s FRAND rate determination was closer to Lenovo’s offered rate of $0.16 per unit than to InterDigital’s demand of $0.498 per unit. Both parties appealed.

Lenovo argued that the High Court wrongly found that Lenovo should pay a royalty for sales made outside of the six-year limitation period. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the statute of limitations period has no role to “play in a determination of FRAND terms between (necessarily) a willing licensor and a willing licensee.” The Court of Appeal explained that a willing licensor would not “refuse to pay whatever license fees were eventually determined to [be] applicable” to products outside the limitations period and would not be considered willing if it refused. The Court of Appeal concluded that a willing licensee would not try to benefit from delay in agreeing FRAND terms or payment of FRAND royalties and, therefore, would pay with respect to all past units. From a policy perspective, the Court of Appeal noted that there should not be an incentive for the licensee to delay negotiations to minimize the amount it should be required to pay.

InterDigital challenged the per unit rate set by the High Court, including the rate derived from one of the comparable licenses and the adjustments made to reflect Lenovo’s position vis-à-vis the licensee. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court’s rate determination was internally inconsistent because it found that InterDigital had been forced to heavily discount past sales and this aspect was not FRAND while also declining to make any correction to the blended rate that had been derived from the license to account for non-FRAND factors. The Court of Appeal also found that the High Court did not properly justify rejecting InterDigital’s allocation of the lump sum paid by the licensee between past sales and future sales, which would have led to a higher rate.

The Court of Appeal conducted a detailed review of the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

De Minimis Defense Doesn’t Protect Minimal Use of Concededly Infringing Material

by | Sep 23, 2021 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a copyright case based on a “minimal usage” or de minimis use defense. Richard N. Bell v. Wilmott Storage Services, LLC, et al., Case Nos. 19-55882, -56181 (9th Cir. July 26, 2021) (Wardlaw, J.) (Clifton, J., and Choe-Groves, J., concurring).

Richard Bell took a photo of the Indianapolis skyline and published it on various websites. Eleven years later, he registered the photo with the US Copyright Office. Bell later conducted an online reverse image search of his photo to identify potential infringers and subsequently filed more than 100 copyright infringement lawsuits. One of the sites on which Bell found the photo was VisitUSA.com. The image was only available to those who had conducted a reverse image search or knew the precise web address to the photo. Wilmott Storage Services purchased VisitUSA.com in 2012. In 2018, Bell notified Wilmott that it was displaying the photo without his permission. Wilmott removed the photo in response to Bell’s request. In 2019, Wilmott continued to display a copy of the photo, but at a slightly different address than before. Wilmott explained that its webmaster was supposed to remove the photo but instead only changed the file name. Wilmott subsequently removed the photo.

Bell sued Wilmott for copyright infringement in 2018, asserting that Wilmott infringed his right to “display the copyrighted work publicly” by making it accessible to the public on Wilmott’s server. Assuming infringement, Wilmott filed for summary judgment based on the affirmative defenses of de minimis use, fair use and the statute of limitations. The district court granted summary judgment to Wilmott on the de minimis use defense. Although Wilmott conceded that an identical copy of the photo was hosted on its server, the district court found no infringement. Bell appealed.

The Ninth Circuit noted that it had not previously addressed the issue of whether one “publicly displays” a work where it is accessible only to members of the public who either possess the specific pinpoint address or who perform a particular type of online search—here, a reverse image search. Applying Ninth Circuit precedent from Perfect 10, the Court concluded that Wilmott publicly displayed the photo.

The Ninth Circuit also found that there was no place for an inquiry into whether there was de minimis copying because the “degree of copying” was total since the infringing work was an identical copy of the copyrighted photo. The Court explained that it and a majority of other circuits do not view the de minimis doctrine as a defense to infringement but rather as an answer to the inquiry whether an infringing work and copyrighted work are substantially similar so as to make the copying actionable. The Court reiterated that the de minimis defense applies to the amount of copying, not to the extent of the defendant’s use of the infringing work. The Court also explained that the de minimis copying defense is [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Injunctive Relief Available Even Where Laches Bars Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition Damage Claims

by | Aug 12, 2021 |

The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed a district court’s conclusion that laches barred an advertising and marketing company’s claims for monetary damages for trademark infringement and unfair competition, but remanded the case for assessment of injunctive relief to protect the public’s interest in avoiding confusion between two similarly named companies operating in the advertising sector. Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group, Inc. v. Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group, LLC, Case No. 19-15167 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) (Branch, J.)

Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group (Pinnacle Illinois) is an Illinois-based company and owner of two registered trademarks including the name “Pinnacle.” Pinnacle Illinois learned of a Florida-based company operating under almost the same name that was also in the advertising and marketing space—Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group (Pinnacle Florida) —through potential clients and a magazine’s accidental conflation of the two unrelated companies. Several years later, Pinnacle Illinois sued Pinnacle Florida for trademark infringement, unfair competition and cybersquatting. Pinnacle Florida filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Pinnacle Illinois’s trademark registrations and also alleged that Pinnacle Illinois’s claims were barred by the doctrine of laches.

Following a jury trial, the district court granted Pinnacle Florida’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Pinnacle Illinois’s cybersquatting claim. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Pinnacle Illinois on its claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition, awarding Pinnacle Illinois $550,000 in damages. The district court then granted Pinnacle Florida’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on its laches defense, concluding that Pinnacle Illinois’s trademark infringement and unfair competition claims were barred by laches because it waited more than four years to bring suit after it should have known that it had a potential infringement claim against Pinnacle Florida. The district court also cancelled Pinnacle Illinois’s registrations because it concluded that Pinnacle Illinois’s marks were merely descriptive and lacked secondary meaning. Pinnacle Illinois appealed.

Pinnacle Illinois argued that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Pinnacle Illinois’s claims were barred by laches, and that even if laches did bar Pinnacle Illinois’s claims for money damages, the district court should have considered whether injunctive relief was proper to protect the public’s interest in avoiding confusion between the two companies. Pinnacle Illinois also argued that the district court erred when it cancelled its registrations without regard to the jury’s findings of distinctiveness and protectability or the presumption of distinctiveness afforded to its registered marks.

The 11th Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that laches barred Pinnacle Illinois from bringing its trademark infringement and unfair competition claims for monetary damages. Pinnacle Illinois sued after the Florida four-year statute of limitations had passed, and the Court found that the company was not excused for its delay because it did not communicate with Pinnacle Florida about the infringement until it filed suit. Pinnacle Florida also suffered economic prejudice because it invested significant time and money, including around $2 million, in developing its business under [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Fairness Is the Limit for Asserting False Advertising Claims

by | Feb 11, 2021 |

Addressing whether Lanham Act claims for false advertising or false association under § 43(a) (15 USC § 1125(a)) are subject to a statute of limitations, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the sole time limit on bringing such claims is the equitable doctrine of laches. Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, Case No. 18-2183 (4th Cir. Feb. 2, 2021) (Floyd, J.)

The facts of the underlying dispute are straightforward. Bayer has sold the pain reliever naproxen as FLANAX in Mexico since 1972 and in the United States as ALEVE. Belmora began selling naproxen under the name FLANAX in the United States in 2004, where it used similar packaging and described the drug as one sold successfully in Mexico. Both companies tried to register the mark with the US Patent & Trademark Office, where proceedings unfolded. Ultimately, in April 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelled Belmora’s trademark registration, finding that Belmora had blatantly misused FLANAX by drawing on the popularity of Bayer’s Mexican product. Two months later, Bayer brought claims against Belmora under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and California unfair competition law in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The suit was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia, where Belmora moved to dismiss, arguing that § 43(a) and state law claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Bayer replied that § 43(a) had no statute of limitations, and that the time to bring the state law claims had been tolled during the Board’s proceedings. The district court granted both of Belmora’s motions, and the appeal followed.

Because there is no express statute of limitations for a § 43(a) claim, the question before the Court was whether to assume that Congress intended that the most analogous state law statute of limitations apply, or to apply either the most analogous federal statute or common law laches doctrine. “Conclud[ing] that § 43(a) is one such federal law for which a state statute of limitations would be an unsatisfactory vehicle for enforcement,” the Court held that laches was more appropriate, for primarily two reasons. First, the statutory text provides that § 43(a) damages are subject to the principles of equity, which would include the doctrine of laches. Second, the Court found persuasive the law of the Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits, which each apply laches as to restrict the timeliness of as § 43(a) action. That said, the Court emphasized that on remand, the district court should consider the period for bringing a similar state action as part of the laches analysis, especially because the Fourth Circuit employs a presumption that claims brought after the expiration of the most-analogous statute-of-limitations are barred by laches.

The Court noted that Bayer could overcome a presumption of laches, and cited three factors for the district court to consider:

  • Bayer’s knowledge (or lack thereof) of Belmora’s adverse use
  • Whether Bayer’s delay was inexcusable or unreasonable
  • Whether Belmora had been unduly prejudiced by [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Pay up, per party litigation stipulation

by | Apr 23, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived key portions of a long-running patent dispute, rejecting the district court’s extraterritoriality ruling and narrowing its prosecution disclaimer analysis while leaving intact the exclusion of certain damages theories for inadequate disclosure. VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 24-1772 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2026) (Moore, Chen, Kleeh, JJ.)

VLSI filed suit in 2017 accusing Intel of infringing several patents related to selecting an appropriate core in a multicore processor to execute a task based on measured performance characteristics. Following claim construction and discovery, the district court struck portions of VLSI’s damages case, concluding that certain theories advanced by VLSI’s damages expert had not been adequately disclosed. The court then granted summary judgment of noninfringement on two independent grounds: extraterritoriality on the theory that the claimed “measuring” activity occurred outside the United States, and failure of VLSI’s doctrine of equivalents arguments. VLSI appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed in substantial part. As to the asserted method claims, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court’s extraterritoriality analysis could not be reconciled with the parties’ stipulation. That stipulation provided that, for accused Intel products and activities meeting the technical requirements of the asserted claims, 70% would be deemed to satisfy the requisite US nexus for infringement purposes. The district court had reasoned that the stipulation could not establish domestic infringement unless the underlying claim limitations themselves were practiced in the United States. The Federal Circuit disagreed, emphasizing the stipulation’s plain language that the technical requirement inquiry was to be conducted “without regard to geographic considerations.”

The Federal Circuit rejected Intel’s contention that the stipulation merely served as a damages accounting shortcut rather than as an agreement bearing on infringement. However, in the Court’s view, stipulating a fact relevant to infringement, such as US nexus, is different from conceding infringement itself. The Court therefore found that Intel was bound by the agreement it struck, even if it later came to view the agreement as “imprudently made.”

On that basis, the Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement on extraterritoriality grounds for the asserted method claims.

The Federal Circuit also reversed summary judgment as to the asserted apparatus claims. It concluded that the district court had focused too narrowly on where the claimed measuring functionality was practiced, rather than on whether the accused products were reasonably capable of performing the claimed functions without significant alteration. The Court concluded that the record contained sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the accused products were reasonably capable of performing the claimed measuring limitations. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate, and the Court reversed the extraterritoriality ruling as to the apparatus claims.

The Federal Circuit also reinstated VLSI’s doctrine of equivalents theory for some of the apparatus claims that the district court had barred based on a prosecution disclaimer finding. Referencing the prosecution of the asserted patent, the district court imported an “upon identifying” limitation into the claims, notwithstanding [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Double trouble: Proposed IPR institution changes would limit duplicative proceedings

by | Oct 23, 2025 | ,

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed changes to the rules governing inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, including setting limits on use of IPR proceedings for patent claims that have already been challenged in a prior proceeding. According to the USPTO, the proposal is aimed at preventing duplicative litigation against patent holders and promoting fairness, efficiency, and predictability in patent disputes.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking introduces changes to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 that would bar the institution of IPRs in cases where:

  • A petitioner refuses to stipulate that it won’t pursue invalidity challenges under §§ 102 or 103 in other venues, such as a district court or the US International Trade Commission (ITC).
  • The challenged claims were found not invalid or not unpatentable in a prior district court, ITC, Board reexamination, or Federal Circuit proceeding.
  • Parallel litigation involving the patent will likely reach a decision before the final IPR written decision.

The proposed rule would provide an exception to the proposed IPR limitations in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as a bad faith institution of a previous IPR or a substantial change in law that renders a prior challenge irrelevant.

The USPTO explained that the proposed changes will offer greater certainty for patent owners by reducing serial validity challenges, improving judicial efficiency by minimizing duplicative proceedings, and facilitating lower litigation costs and stronger investment incentives. The USPTO noted that the changes would benefit smaller technology companies, which often lack the litigation resources of larger companies and are more vulnerable to the effects of weaker patent rights.

The proposed changes would represent a significant shift in the availability of IPR for petitioners and would alter the timing and strategy of decisions about whether to pursue an IPR. Comments on the proposed rule changes are due by November 17, 2025, and can be submitted via the federal eRulemaking portal.



read more

On repeat: Separate accrual rule doesn’t apply to continuing harm from infringing act

by | Aug 28, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a copyright lawsuit as time barred, finding that the separate accrual rule does not apply to continuing harm from a single infringing act. Foss v. Eastern States Exposition, Case No. 24-1360 (1st Cir. Aug. 21, 2025) (Montecalvo, Kayatta, Aframe, JJ.)

In 2016, Spencer Brewery commissioned graphic designer Cynthia Foss to create a room-sized artwork for its exhibition space at an annual fair hosted by Eastern States Exposition. Foss retained copyright ownership and specified that the installation be displayed exclusively in person to paying patrons of the fair. During the fair, Eastern produced a marketing video featuring Foss’s work without attribution. Foss applied for copyright registration on April 19, 2017, and it was subsequently granted.

In early 2018, Foss filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Eastern, which the district court dismissed without prejudice. Rather than amending her initial complaint, Foss filed a second suit in July 2018, which was also dismissed without prejudice. In December 2020, she submitted an amended complaint, which was again dismissed. Foss appealed, and the First Circuit reversed and remanded the case, instructing the district court to determine whether the dismissal should have claim preclusive effect because of the prejudice caused to Eastern by Foss’s failure to meet the precondition to sue.

On remand, Eastern moved to dismiss, arguing that permitting Foss to proceed would be prejudicial and that the statute of limitations barred the suit. The district court agreed on both grounds. Foss appealed.

Foss contended that the district court misinterpreted when Eastern’s alleged violations ceased for purposes of the statute of limitations and misunderstood when she was legally permitted to seek relief.

The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the statute of limitations barred the claim.

Foss argued that the district court failed to apply the separate accrual rule, asserting that the infringing video constituted a continuing display until it was removed. Because Eastern had not established when the video was taken down, Foss claimed that the limitations period had not begun. The First Circuit rejected this argument and clarified that continuing harm from a single infringement does not equate to separately accruing acts. The Court explained that Foss’ contention (that Eastern’s posts remained infringing displays until they were removed) reflected a theory of continuing harm stemming from a single act of infringement, rather than a series of discrete violations that would trigger the separate accrual rule.

Foss further argued that her claims accrued only after she obtained copyright registration and could legally file suit. The First Circuit dismissed this argument, citing Supreme Court precedent that infringement claims accrue when the infringing act occurs, not upon registration or the ability to sue.

Accordingly, the First Circuit concluded that Foss’s December 2020 complaint was untimely and affirmed the district court’s dismissal.



read more

Don’t walk away: Trademark owner can’t bring infringement suit against co-owner

by | Jul 17, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court’s summary judgment decision that a co-owner of a trademark cannot bring infringement or dilution claims under the Lanham Act against other co-owners or their licensees. Reed v. Marshall et al., Case No. 24-20198 (5th Cir. July 2, 2025) (Graves, Smith, Duncan, JJ.)

Originally formed by Di Reed, Joi Marshall, and Tonya Harris (aka Tonya Kelly), Jade was a music group that enjoyed commercial success before disbanding in 1995. In 2018, the trio attempted a reunion and jointly applied for the federal service mark JADE, which was registered in June 2019. The reunion ultimately did not materialize. In 2021, Marshall and Harris began performing under the JADE name with a new singer, Myracle Holloway, engaged under a six-month work-for-hire agreement. Reed objected, claiming they used the jointly owned mark without her consent, and filed suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and Texas law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Marshall and Harris. Reed appealed.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The central question was whether a co-owner of a federally registered trademark may bring an action under the Lanham Act against another co-owner for alleged unauthorized use of the mark.

The district court concluded that absent a contractual agreement to the contrary, co-owners of a trademark each have equal rights to use the mark. The Fifth Circuit affirmed that the Lanham Act does not authorize one co-owner to sue another for infringement or dilution; such disputes must be resolved through contract law or other private arrangements. Because Holloway’s use of the mark was authorized by two co-owners of the registration, she too was shielded from liability under the Lanham Act.

The Fifth Circuit also rejected Reed’s unfair competition and dilution claims, finding no evidence of misuse that would infringe the rights of an equal co-owner.

Practice note: When multiple parties intend to co-own a trademark, it is usually advisable to enter into an agreement that clearly defines each party’s rights and limitations on use. Without such an agreement, co-owners may find themselves with limited recourse in the event of a dispute.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES