You searched for Trademark appeal

Results for "Trademark appeal"

Waiver in PTO Trademark Appeals Applies “Per Decision, Not Per Case”

by Paul Devinsky | Mar 24, 2021 | Trademarks

Addressing a “narrow question of statutory interpretation,” the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a trademark case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that a party that appeals a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB) decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may, after remand to and issuance of a new decision by the TTAB, seek review of the new decision in federal district court. Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. v. Frito-Lay N.A., Inc., Case No. 19-2316 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2021) (Wynn, J.)

Princeton Vanguard, a snack food producer, applied to register its mark “Pretzel Crisps” on the principal register. Frito-Lay opposed. The TTAB denied Princeton Vanguard’s application, concluding that the mark was generic.

Under the Lanham Act, Princeton Vanguard could appeal the TTAB’s original decision to either the Federal Circuit under 15 USC § 1071(a) or federal district court under § 1071(b). Princeton Vanguard elected a direct appeal to the Federal Circuit pursuant to § 1071(a), thus waiving its right to district court review. The Federal Circuit concluded that the TTAB applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating whether Princeton Vanguard’s mark was generic and remanded the case to the TTAB. The TTAB again concluded that Princeton Vanguard’s mark was generic. This time, Princeton Vanguard appealed to a federal district court pursuant to § 1071(b).

The district court sua sponte dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that Princeton Vanguard’s appeal of the original decision to the Federal Circuit pursuant to § 1071(a) precluded Princeton Vanguard from appealing the second decision to a district court pursuant to § 1071(b). Princeton Vanguard appealed.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the statutory text of the Lanham Act supported Princeton Vanguard’s argument in favor of jurisdiction. The Court explained that Princeton Vanguard’s waiver of its right to district court review of the original TTAB decision pursuant to § 1071(a) did not apply to any subsequent decisions in the same case, and that the waiver applied “per decision, but not per case.”

The Court rejected Frito-Lay’s argument that Princeton Vanguard was taking a second bite at the apple by seeking re-review in federal district court of issues already decided by the Federal Circuit, reasoning that Princeton Vanguard was seeking district court review of the second, separate decision that had not been reviewed by the Federal Circuit. The Court stressed, however, that the Federal Circuit’s review of the TTAB’s original decision was binding as to issues it decided.

Practice Note: If the TTAB issues multiple decisions in the same proceeding, each decision is considered a separate decision for purposes of waiver under §§ 1071(a) (b), even if the decisions implicate similar issues.

Trademark Trial & Appeal Board Gets a DuPont 101 Lesson

by Eleanor B. Atkins | Feb 22, 2024 | Trademarks

Addressing errors in the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s likelihood of confusion analysis in a cancellation action, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the Board erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the first DuPont factor (similarity of the marks) and failing to consider the relevant evidence for the third (similarity of established trade channels). Naterra International, Inc. v. Samah Bensalem, Case No. 22-1872 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2024) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

In 2020, Naterra International filed a petition to cancel Samah Bensalem’s registration for BABIES’ MAGIC TEA for use in connection with “medicated tea for babies that treats colic and gas and helps babies sleep better” based on a likelihood of confusion with Naterra’s multiple registrations for BABY MAGIC for use in connection with infant toiletry products such as lotion and baby shampoo. The Board denied Naterra’s petition, finding that Naterra failed to prove a likelihood of confusion. The Board found that while the first DuPont likelihood of confusion factor (similarity of the marks) weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion, factors two (similarity of the goods) and three (similarity of established trade channels) did not, and Naterra’s BABY MAGIC mark “fell somewhere in the middle” for factor five (fame of the prior mark). The Board found that factors four (conditions of purchasing), six (number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods), eight (length of time and conditions of concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion), 10 (market interface between applicant and owner of a prior mark) and 12 (extent of potential confusion) were neutral. Naterra appealed.

Naterra argued “that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that the similarity and nature of the goods (DuPont factor two) and trade channels (DuPont factor three) disfavor a likelihood of confusion,” and that the Board did not properly weigh the first (similarity of the marks) and fifth (fame of the prior mark) DuPont factors.

DuPont Factor Two – Relatedness of the Goods

The Board rejected Naterra’s expert testimony that other so-called “umbrella” baby brands offered both infant skincare products and ingestible products, calling it “unsupported by underlying evidence.” The Federal Circuit disagreed, stating that “testimony that third-party companies sell both types of goods is pertinent to the relatedness of the goods.” Nonetheless, because the Court could not determine whether the Board rejected the expert testimony for other reasons, it remanded the case for further consideration and explanation of its analysis on this point.

DuPont Factor Three – Similarity of Trade Channels

The Board found that the third factor weighed against a likelihood of confusion, stating that it lacked the “persuasive evidence” necessary to “conclude that the trade channels are the same.” The Federal Circuit found that the Board erred by not addressing relevant evidence, namely Bensalem’s admission that the parties’ goods were sold in similar trade channels. The Court also noted that the Board “did not identify in its decision any evidence showing a lack of [...]

Continue Reading

A Primer on Practice at the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board

by Paul Devinsky | Jun 30, 2022 | Trademarks

In a precedential decision rendered in an opposition proceeding, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) took the lawyers for each side to task for ignoring Board rules in presentation of their case, but ultimately decided the case on a likelihood of confusion analysis. The Board found that the parties’ marks and goods were “highly similar” and sustained the opposition. Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, Opposition Nos. 91223352; 91223683; 91227387 (June 15, 2022, TTAB) (Wellington, Heasley and Hudis, ALJs) (precedential).

Pharmavite sought registration of the standard character mark NATURE MADE for various foods and beverages based on allegations of bone fide intent to use in commerce. Made in Nature (MIN) opposed on the ground that Pharmavite’s mark so resembled MIN’s registered and common law “Made In Nature” marks as to cause a likelihood of confusion when used on the goods for which registration was sought.

In its brief to the Board, Pharmavite raised, for the first time, the Morehouse (or prior registration) defense. MIN objected to the Morehouse defense as untimely. The Board agreed, noting that defense is “an equitable defense, to the effect that if the opposer cannot be further injured because there already exists an injurious registration, the opposer cannot object to an additional registration that does not add to the injury.” The party asserting a Morehouse defense must show that it “has an existing registration [or registrations] of the same mark[s] for the same goods” (emphasis in original).

Here, the Board found that this defense was not tried by the parties’ express consent and that implied consent “can be found only where the non-offering party (1) raised no objection to the introduction of evidence on the issue, and (2) was fairly apprised that the evidence was being offered in support of the issue.” In this case, Pharmavite did introduce into the record its prior NATURE MADE registrations but only for the purpose of supporting Pharmavite’s “[r]ight to exclude; use and strength of Applicant’s mark.” The Board found that this inclusion did not provide notice of reliance on the Morehouse or prior registration defense at trial.

In sustaining the opposition, the Board commented extensively on the record and how it was used, “[s]o that the parties, their counsel and perhaps other parties in future proceedings can benefit and possibly reduce their litigation costs.”

Over-Designation of the Record as Confidential

The Board criticized the parties for over-designating as confidential large portions of the record, warning that only the specific “exhibits, declaration passages or deposition transcript pages that truly disclosed confidential information should have been filed under seal under a protective order.” If a party over-designates material as confidential, “the Board will not be bound by the party’s designation.”

Duplicative Evidence

The Board criticized the parties for filing “duplicative evidence by different methods of introduction; for example, once by Notice of Reliance and again by way of an exhibit to a testimony declaration or testimony deposition.” The Board noted that such practice is viewed “with disfavor.”

Overuse of [...]

Continue Reading

read more

Alleged Trademark Infringer Remains Hog-Tied after Appeal

by Paul Devinsky | Feb 3, 2022 | Trademarks
The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed an appeal of a district court order denying a stay of a federal action for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reversed in part the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction. The Trial Lawyers College v. Gerry Spence Trial Lawyers College at Thunderhead Ranch, Case No. 20-8038 (10th Cir. Jan. 27, 2022) (Bacharach, Briscoe, Murphy, JJ.).

The dispute between the parties arose out of a program called The Trial Lawyers College at Thunderhead Ranch in Wyoming. The College’s board of directors split into two factions known as the “Spence Group” and the “Sloan Group.” After the split, the two groups sued each other. The Spence Group sued in state court for dissolution of the College and a declaratory judgment regarding control of the board of directors. The Sloan Group sued in federal court claiming trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.

Both groups sought relief in the federal case. The Spence Group filed a motion to stay the federal court proceedings in light of the state court proceedings, and the Sloan Group requested a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the Spence Group’s stay and granted the Sloan Group’s request for a preliminary injunction. The Spence Group appealed both rulings.

The Tenth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s stay denial. First, the state court resolved the dispute concerning board control, rendering part of the requested stay moot. Second, the Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining motion for stay because it was not a final order. The Court explained that it needed to decide the appealability of the ruling based on the category of order rather than the particular facts of the case. The Court found that there was no unsettled issue of unique urgency or importance that warranted the Court exercising jurisdiction over the denial of the stay. Specifically, the Court explained that piecemeal litigation was unlikely because the state court already decided the issue of board control, and the Spence Group did not identify an unsettled issue of unique urgency.

The Tenth Circuit did exercise jurisdiction over the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction. The Spence Group challenged the district court’s finding of irreparable harm, the order to remove sculptures bearing the College’s name, restrictions on what the Spence Group could say and the consideration of evidence presented after the hearing ended. The Court reviewed the district court’s findings under an abuse-of-discretion standard. The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding irreparable harm, considering evidence after the hearing and enjoining the Spence Group from using words associated with the College. The Court explained that the district court reasonably found irreparable harm based on the College’s efforts to protect its name, logo and trademarks, as well as evidence of likely confusion among customers of the College based on the Spence Group’s use of those trademarks. As for the sculptures, the Court found [...]

Continue Reading

read more

Texas Hammer Nails Trademark Infringement Appeal

by Joshua Revilla | Sep 2, 2021 | Trademarks
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of an initial confusion trademark complaint, finding that the plaintiff alleged a plausible claim of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Adler v. McNeil Consultants, LLC, Case No. 20-10936 (6th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021) (Southwick, J.)

Jim Adler is a personal injury lawyer who trademarked and used several terms, including JIM ADLER, THE HAMMER and TEXAS HAMMER, to market his business, including via keyword advertisements. McNeil Consultants, a personal injury lawyer referral service, purchased keyword ads using Adler’s trademarked terms, which allowed McNeil’s advertisements to appear at the top of any Google search of Adler’s trademarked terms. McNeil’s advertisements used generic personal injury terms, did not identify any particular law firm and clicking on the ads placed a phone call to McNeil’s call center rather than directing the user to a website. The call center used a generic greeting so consumers did not realize with whom they were speaking.

Adler filed suit against McNeil, asserting Texas state law claims as well as trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. McNeil moved to dismiss, arguing that its keyword ads did not create a likelihood of confusion. The district court agreed and dismissed Adler’s complaint. Adler appealed.

To successfully plead a trademark infringement claim under Fifth Circuit law, the holder of a protectable trademark must establish that the alleged infringing use “creates a likelihood of confusion as to source, affiliation, or sponsorship.” To determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists, the Court weighs a non-exhaustive list of several confusion factors, including the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the products, the defendant’s intent and the care exercised by potential consumers.

The Fifth Circuit explained that Adler alleged initial interest confusion, which exists where the confusion creates consumer interest in the infringing party’s services even where no sale is completed because of the confusion. The Court noted that this case presented the first opportunity for the Fifth Circuit to consider initial interest confusion as it pertains to search engine keyword advertising. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent and parallel reasoning to its own opinions on initial interest confusion in the context of metatag usage, the Court concluded that Adler’s complaint alleged a plausible claim of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.

The Fifth Circuit noted that initial interest confusion alone is not enough to raise a Lanham Act claim. The Court explained that if a consumer searches TOYOTA and is directed to search results containing a purchased ad clearly labeled as selling VOLKSWAGEN products, a consumer who clicks on the VOLKSWAGEN ad has been distracted, not confused or misled into purchasing the wrong product. Distraction does not violate the Lanham Act. However, the Court explained that where the use of keyword ads creates confusion as to the source of the advertisement—not mere distraction—an infringement may have occurred. Because McNeil’s advertisements were admittedly generic and could have been associated with any personal injury law firm, the Court found that the keyword [...]

Continue Reading

read more

Hot out of the oven: Trademark limits on pizza-inspired names

by Keval Amin | Jan 29, 2026 | Trademarks
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a preliminary injunction barring the use of PIZZA PUFF, concluding that the trademark owner failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because the term was likely generic and, in any event, was descriptively and fairly used. Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc., Case Nos. 24-3317; 25-1072; -1076; -1112 (7th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026) (Scudder, St. Eve, Jackson-Akiwumi, JJ.)

Illinois Tamale Company (Iltaco), a Chicago-based food company, has sold its signature “Pizza Puff” since 1976, distributing the product nationwide alongside other “Puff”-branded products. Iltaco owns federal trademark registrations for PIZZA PUFF (registered in 2009) and PUFF (registered in 2022).

In March 2024, Little Caesars introduced “Crazy Puffs,” small baked dough cups filled with pizza ingredients. The product launched as part of Little Caesars’ long-running “Crazy” line and was marketed prominently under the Little Caesars name, logo, and orange trade dress. Little Caesars secured its own federal registration for CRAZY PUFFS, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified no conflicting marks during examination.

Following the product launch, Iltaco sent a cease-and-desist letter claiming that CRAZY PUFFS and the phrase “4 Hand-Held Pizza Puffs” infringed its trademarks. When Little Caesars declined to change its marketing, Iltaco sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition and sought a preliminary injunction. The district court issued a split ruling, enjoining Little Caesars from using PIZZA PUFF but permitting continued use of CRAZY PUFFS and PUFF. Both parties appealed.

The Seventh Circuit found that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in assessing the protectability of PIZZA PUFF. The Court explained that rather than asking whether competitors could offer similar products without using the term, trademark protectability turns on the “primary significance” test, which is whether consumers primarily understand the term as a brand name or as the common name of a product. Because generic terms can never function as trademarks, the Court focused on evidence of consumer perception.

Applying that framework, the Seventh Circuit found substantial evidence that PIZZA PUFF was generic:

More than 80% of surveyed consumers viewed the term as referring to a product category rather than a brand.

Dictionary definitions treated the term generically.

Third-party filings and industry usage consistently employed the phrase as a common name.

This evidence rebutted the presumption of validity afforded by Iltaco’s federal registration, and Iltaco failed to demonstrate a likelihood of proving distinctiveness at trial. The Court therefore concluded that Iltaco did not show a likelihood of success on the merits and reversed the preliminary injunction barring Little Caesars’ use of PIZZA PUFF.

The Seventh Circuit further found that even if PIZZA PUFF were distinctive, Iltaco still could not obtain injunctive relief because Little Caesars was likely to prevail on a fair-use defense. The Court emphasized that fair use requires only descriptive, good-faith use, and not a perfect fit between the challenged term and the product. Here, PIZZA PUFF plausibly described Little Caesars’ light, pizza-filled food [...]

Continue Reading

read more

Deadlines and discretion: Appeal trips over the clock

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Jan 15, 2026 | Trademarks
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part an appeal of an International Trade Commission decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s issuance of a limited exclusion order against one set of respondents and dismissed the complainant’s appeal of the Commission’s no‑violation finding against another set of respondents as time‑barred under the statute. Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No. 2024-1300 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) (Stoll, Lourie, Chun, JJ.)

Crocs filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that multiple respondents violated Section 337 by importing, selling for importation, or selling within the US footwear that infringed its registered trademarks (the 3D marks), which are associated with certain features of Crocs’ Classic Clog shoes. Crocs’ complaint requested relief in the form of a general exclusion order (GEO), or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order (LEO). Three respondents participated in an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge in September 2022 (active respondents) while four respondents were in default and waived their rights to appear, to be served with documents, and to contest the allegations (defaulting respondents). More than 20 other respondents were terminated based on consent orders or settlement agreements.

In a September 14, 2023, Notice of Final Determination and accompanying opinion, the Commission found no violation by the active respondents, concluding that Crocs had not established likelihood of confusion, infringement, or dilution of the 3D marks. The Commission, presuming the facts alleged in the complaint as true and finding that public interest factors do not preclude relief, also issued an LEO against the defaulting respondents, barring them from importing the infringing shoes.

On December 22, 2023, Crocs filed a notice of appeal challenging the Commission’s no-violation finding as to the active respondents and its decision to issue only an LEO against the defaulting respondents rather than the GEO that Crocs requested. The Commission countered that Crocs’ appeal against the active respondents was time-barred by Section 337(c), which required the appeal to be filed by November 13, 2023, and argued that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in issuing only an LEO against the defaulting respondents.

The Federal Circuit dismissed Crocs’ appeal against the active respondents as untimely. The Court explained that when the Commission issues a single decision that contains a no-violation finding against one set of respondents and enters an exclusion order against another set of respondents, each ruling carries its own deadline for appeal. In this case, Crocs’ December 22, 2023, appeal was time-barred under Section 337(c) because the 60-day period for filing a notice of appeal on the no-violation finding expired on November 13, 2023. The Court also considered and upheld the Commission’s LEO order, concluding that the Commission had articulated a sufficient basis for the remedy and that its decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

read more

No curtain call yet: Mixed verdict in patent, trademark, standing case

by Hannah Hurley | Oct 9, 2025 | Patents, Trademarks
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed a wide array of issues in a long-running dispute over shower curtain technology. The Court provided important guidance on patent claim scope using intrinsic evidence, trademark standing and ownership of the mark in issue, trade dress functionality under TrafFix, and the need for district courts to provide a reviewable explanation when issuing patent infringement summary judgment based on the facts of this case. Focus Products Grp. Int’l, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., Case No. 23-1446 (Fed Cir. Sept. 30, 2025) (Moore, Clevenger, Chen, JJ.)

The decade-long dispute started when Focus Products sent a cease-and-desist letter to Kartri Sales and its supplier, Marquis Mills International. The letter asserted patent infringement but was largely ignored. Focus Products then filed suit asserting three utility patents, two trademarks (HOOKLESS® and EZ ON), and unregistered trade dress rights in the appearance of its shower curtains.

Four months after the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, Kartri raised a venue objection and filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue. The district court denied the motion, finding it to be unreasonably late, especially considering that Kartri actively conducted litigation after TC Heartland.

The district court construed several disputed claim terms. Based on its constructions, it found no triable issue of fact and granted summary judgment of patent infringement to Focus Products. However, the district court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding trademark and trade dress infringement and ordered a bench trial on those issues.

On the eve of trial, Kartri asserted unclean hands and equitable estoppel defenses. The district court denied these defenses because they were improperly raised for the first time immediately preceding trial.

After a bench trial, the district court held that:

Focus Products had standing to enforce the unregistered EZ ON mark.

Kartri infringed the mark and Focus Products’ trade dress, which was determined to be nonfunctional.

Kartri infringed Focus Products’ HOOKLESS® mark.

Accordingly, the district court awarded lost profits, reasonable royalties, attorneys’ fees, and enhanced damages for willful infringement. Kartri appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Kartri’s motion to transfer venue under TC Heartland, finding Kartri’s objection untimely. Kartri waited four months after TC Heartland to raise the issue, during which time discovery had progressed significantly. The Court emphasized that venue objections must be raised seasonably and that continued litigation in the chosen forum may constitute forfeiture.

The Federal Circuit largely reversed the district court’s infringement findings, explaining that the district court erred in its claim construction because Focus Products had disclaimed shower rings with a flat upper edge during prosecution. While an affirmative disclaimer usually originates from the patent applicant, the Court found clear and unmistakable disavowal through the applicant’s acquiescence to the examiner’s species election, claim cancellation, and narrowed claim scope. This disclaimer was reinforced by the prosecution of a related asserted patent, which explicitly claimed the disclaimed feature. A patentee cannot try [...]

Continue Reading

read more

Fifth Circuit untangles damages in trademark battle

by Christian Tatum | Sep 18, 2025 | Trademarks
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated a jury’s lost profits and breach damages awards that the district court set aside during post-trial proceedings, finding that sufficient evidence supported the awards. I&I Hair Corp. v. Beauty Plus Trading Co., Case No. 24-10374 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2025) (Haynes, Ho, Oldham, JJ.) (per curiam).

I&I Hair, the seller of EZBRAID synthetic braids, sued competitor Beauty Plus for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of a 2019 settlement agreement that prohibited Beauty Plus from using the EZBRAID mark or confusingly similar terms. At trial, the jury awarded approximately $70,000 for infringement, $1.15 million in lost profits for unfair competition, and $1.3 million for breach of the settlement agreement.

After trial, the district court set aside the unfair competition and breach awards, concluding I&I failed to prove lost profits with reasonable certainty. I&I appealed.

The Fifth Circuit reversed, emphasizing that Texas law requires only competent evidence permitting a jury to determine lost profits with reasonable certainty, not precise proof of the exact amount awarded. The Court found that I&I had met this standard, highlighting evidence that EZBRAID sales surged by 400% in 2017 – 2018 and 70% in 2018 – 2019 but slowed to 10% growth in 2019 – 2020 after Beauty Plus began selling similar products. I&I’s sales declined further as Beauty Plus sold more than $5 million in infringing goods from 2019 to early 2022, with Beauty Plus making sales to nearly half of I&I’s customers. I&I also introduced revenue and profit margin data, as well as testimony that brand dilution and supply chain disruption amplified the harm. The Court concluded that the jury may have rationally considered I&I’s pre-infringement growth in revenue and net income, as well as testimony regarding customer confusion, to reach the damages awarded.

The Fifth Circuit rejected each of Beauty Plus’ arguments. First, it rejected Beauty Plus’ claim that the unfair competition award improperly mirrored Beauty Plus’ profits, explaining that the question was whether the number fell within the range supported by evidence, not whether it matched I&I’s calculations precisely. Second, the Court dismissed Beauty Plus’ challenge to the breach award, noting that Texas law requires certainty only as to the fact of damages, not the exact amount. Finally, the Court found I&I had adequately preserved its opposition to Beauty Plus’ judgment as a matter of law motion.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reinstated the jury’s full verdict and remanded the case for further proceedings on attorneys’ fees.

read more

When is a word too common to trademark? Asking for a four-letter friend

by Sarah Bro | Sep 4, 2025 | Trademarks
In response to artist and entrepreneur Erik Brunetti’s ongoing efforts to register FUCK as a trademark for various goods and services, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register the term but agreed with the Board’s position on the registrability of widely used “all-purpose words.” The Court ordered the remand because it found the Board’s reasoning insufficiently clear and lacking a coherent standard. In re Brunetti, Case No. 23-1539 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2025) (Dyk, Reyna, JJ.) (Lourie, J., dissenting).

Brunetti filed four intent-to-use applications to register FUCK as a trademark for goods, including sunglasses, jewelry, and backpacks, and services such as retail store offerings. The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration, asserting that the term failed to function as a trademark under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Lanham Act and citing its widespread use as a commonplace expression conveying varied sentiments.

The Board affirmed the PTO’s decision, concluding that FUCK was “arguably one of the most expressive words in the English language” and that consumers were accustomed to seeing it used by various sources on similar goods. The Board reasoned that such ubiquity rendered the term incapable of serving as a source identifier. It rejected Brunetti’s constitutional arguments and distinguished the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Iancu v. Brunetti, which invalidated the PTO’s refusal to register the mark FUCK on grounds of immorality. Brunetti appealed.

The Federal Circuit agreed that the Board had properly considered third-party use and the expressive nature of the term. However, the Court found the Board’s decision wanting in clarity and consistency. It criticized the Board’s failure to articulate a workable standard for when “all-purpose word marks” such as FUCK can function as trademarks, especially in light of other registrations for similarly ubiquitous terms such as LOVE and even FUCK itself for snow globes and gummy candies.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that the Board must engage in reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act and provide sufficient guidance for future cases. The Court therefore vacated the decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Despite the remand, the Federal Circuit dismissed Brunetti’s argument that the PTO had retaliated against him for his prior Supreme Court victory in Iancu v. Brunetti. Brunetti claimed that the timing of the refusals (following his successful challenge to the PTO’s immoral/scandalous bar) suggested retaliation. The Court found this argument unpersuasive, noting that Brunetti offered no evidence beyond timing, and that the Board’s analysis remained viewpoint-neutral and focused on whether the mark functioned as a source identifier.

Judge Lourie dissented, arguing that the Federal Circuit should have affirmed the Board’s refusal on grounds that the term FUCK is too ubiquitous and expressive to function as a source identifier for the goods and services in question. He emphasized that the word’s widespread use across varied emotional contexts prevents consumers from associating it with a specific brand. From Judge Lourie’s perspective, FUCK on its own [...]

Continue Reading

read more

Older Posts »

Search for:

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS
TOPICS

ARCHIVES
ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS

Can’t patent idea of using asynchronous data streams during web conferencing

Case exterminated too soon: DTSA and CFAA claims survive

IRPA claims accrue at first publication, not first discovery

Skinny label: Supreme Court to weigh inducement claims against generics

Hot out of the oven: Trademark limits on pizza-inspired names