IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Results for "Trademark appeal"
Subscribe to Results for "Trademark appeal"'s Posts

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 (nonprecedential).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

Time’s Up: Fifth Circuit Reinstates Original Judgment in Trademark Dispute

by | Dec 5, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a district court’s amended final judgment and reinstated its prior final judgment, finding that the district court overstepped its narrow mandate on remand, directly contradicting the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision. In that earlier decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s finding of trademark infringement but modified the scope of the injunction, approving it only in part. Rolex Watch USA, Incorporated v. BeckerTime, L.L.C., Case No. 24-10415 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 2024) (Douglas, King, Willett, JJ.)

BeckerTime modified and sold Rolex-branded watches by adding diamonds, aftermarket bezels, and bands not authorized by Rolex. Rolex sued BeckerTime for trademark infringement, seeking an injunction and disgorgement of profits. While the district court found that BeckerTime infringed Rolex’s trademark, it declined to order disgorgement because of BeckerTime’s laches defense. In the first appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the infringement finding, noting that BeckerTime’s modifications of diamonds and aftermarket bezels went beyond mere repairs and restoration. However, the Fifth Circuit partially modified the district court’s injunction and issued a limited remand to clarify certain language in the injunction. On remand, Rolex and BeckerTime agreed on revised language for that portion of the injunction, which the district court approved. The district court, however, went further by amending other sections of the injunction. This appeal followed.

Both parties agreed that the district court had exceeded its mandate. The amendments permitted BeckerTime to advertise and sell Rolex watches with customized dials under certain conditions, requiring disclosures and inscriptions reading “CUSTOMIZED BY BECKERTIME.” Rolex contended – and the Fifth Circuit agreed – that this language conflicted with the prohibition (in the injunction) of all non-genuine dials, including those bearing original Rolex trademarks.

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s amended judgment and reinstated its prior judgment with modifications, incorporating its earlier decision and the parties’ stipulation.



read more

Trademark Fee Increases: The TEAS Party Is Over

by | Dec 5, 2024 |

After a lengthy public comment and review process, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced trademark fee increases effective January 18, 2025. The goal of PTO fee setting is to provide sufficient financial resources to facilitate the effective administration of the US intellectual property system. The PTO aspires to recover aggregate costs to:

  • Finance the PTO’s mission, strategic goals, and priorities.
  • Enable financial sustainability.
  • Promote efficient operations and filing behaviors.
  • Align fees with the costs of services provided.
  • Encourage access to the trademark system for all stakeholders.

The fees for filing a new trademark application via either the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) or TEAS Plus will remain unchanged: $350 per class for a TEAS standard application and $250 per class for a TEAS Plus application for as long as TEAS remains available (and then using the Beta site discussed below). However, the PTO will institute surcharges for applications that are incomplete or contain custom identifications of goods or services. These application surcharges are intended to encourage more complete applications, which will improve examination efficiency and help reduce pendency.

Description Surcharge Insufficient information (Sections 1 and 44), per class $100 Using the free-form text box instead of the Trademark ID Manual within the Trademark Center to identify goods and services (Sections 1 and 44), per class $200 Each additional group of 1,000 characters in the free-form text box beyond the first 1,000 (Sections 1 and 44), per affected class $200

Since the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is currently unable to collect surcharges, the PTO will raise the fee for WIPO Madrid Trademark Applications to $600 per class.

The PTO will also raise the fees for post-registration filings to offset higher processing costs for these filings and continue balancing the cost of base applications.

Filing Current Fee Fee as of January 18, 2025 Section 9 registration renewal application, per class $300 $325 Section 8 declaration, per class $225 $325 Section 15 declaration, per class $200 $250 Section 71 declaration, per class $225 $325

The PTO has not increased the filing fees in connection with intent to use filings since 2002, although the time to examine such filings has increased exponentially because of the need to examine questionable specimens. Those fees are now set to increase as follows:

Description Current Fee Fee as of January 18, 2025 Amendment to allege use (AAU), per class $100 $150 Statement of use (SOU), per class $100 $150

The fees for requesting an extension of time are unchanged.

Finally, the number of petitions and protests have increased. The PTO will attempt to recover more of the cost of processing petitions and protests as follows:

Description Current Fee Fee as of January 18, 2025 Petition to the Director $250 $400 Petition to revive an application $150 $250 Letter of protest $50 $150

For further details, including a complete list of the fee increases, click here.

The PTO also announced that as of January 18, 2025, filers [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Clear Vision: Keyword Search Term Purchase Doesn’t Blur Trademark Lines

by | Oct 17, 2024 |

Addressing the issue of trademark infringement based on the purchase of search advertising keywords, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined the consensus view and upheld a district court decision finding that the mere purchase of a search advertising keyword containing another’s trademark does not by itself constitute trademark infringement. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. JAND, Inc., Case No. 22-1634 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2024) (Chin, Carney, Lee, JJ.)

1-800 Contacts is an established online retailer for contact lenses. JAND (doing business as Warby Parker) was originally an online retailer for eyeglasses and began selling contact lenses online as well in 2019. As a newcomer to the market of online contact lenses, Warby Parker purchased search advertising keywords that included 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks. This practice is known as search keyword advertising, and it is a type of marketing that allows parties to purchase certain terms from search engines that, when used as a search query, result in the paying party’s advertisements appearing above the organic search results as part of the “paid results.”

1-800 Contacts sued Warby Parker for engaging in this practice, alleging that the purchase and use of 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal and New York state law. The district court disagreed, granting Warby Parker’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and finding that 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks and the “Warby Parker” trademark were entirely dissimilar. 1-800 Contacts appealed.

1-800 Contacts argued that Warby Parker purchased search engine keyworks consisting of 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks to use them in connection with an adverting campaign designed to mislead consumers. 1-800 Contacts alleged that the purchase of these keywords resulted in consumer confusion because users searching for “1-800 contacts” would receive Warby Parker’s “ambiguous ads that generate source, sponsorship or initial interest confusion.” 1-800 Contacts further alleged that the webpage that was linked to Warby Parker’s advertisements “magnified this confusion” because it mimicked the look and feel of 1-800 Contacts’ website.

The Second Circuit noted that two types of consumer confusion were at issue in the case: sponsorship confusion, which occurs when consumers believe “the mark’s owner sponsored or otherwise approved the use of the trademark,” and initial-interest confusion. To sufficiently plead internet-related initial-interest confusion, “a showing of intentional deception [is necessary] . . . because consumers diverted on the Internet can more readily get back on track that those in actual space.”

The Second Circuit reviewed the eight-factor Polaroid test to assess whether 1-800 Contacts sufficiently pled a likelihood of confusion. The Court agreed with the district court that certain factors, including the strength of the mark, the competitive proximity of the products, the relative quality of the products, and good faith, favored 1-800 Contacts. However, other factors, including, most importantly, the similarity of the marks, favored Warby Parker: “Here, the pleadings failed to plausibly allege that Warby Parker used 1-800’s Marks anywhere during the search advertising process outside of its purchase at the initial, permissible keyword auction. . . . Thus, the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Chickening Out: Reason for Trademark Abandonment Irrelevant Without Proof of Intent to Resume

by | Oct 3, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment decision finding that the prior owner of a trademark for fresh chicken had abandoned the mark by failing to use it for three years and failing to show an intent to resume use of the mark. To-Ricos, Ltd. v. Productos Avícolas Del Sur, Inc., Case No. 22-1853 (1st Cir. Sept. 19, 2024) (Montecalvo, Lipez, Thompson, JJ.)

PAS, a Puerto Rico corporation, sold Pollo Picú branded chicken from 2005 to 2011. The Picú trademark consists of a cartoon chicken with the phrase “Pollo Picú” underneath it:

While Pollo Picú was once a well-recognized brand in Puerto Rico, PAS encountered administrative and financial challenges. In 2006 and 2009, it failed to file declarations with the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) attesting to the use of the mark as required by Section 8 of the Lanham Act. The PTO therefore canceled the Picú trademark registration. PAS stopped selling chicken bearing the mark after its bank froze PAS’s financing in 2011. The bank filed suit in January 2012 under a preexisting loan agreement in which PAS had granted the bank a lien over PAS’s assets, including the Picú mark. PAS offered to sell the company to To-Ricos, PAS’s main competitor, but no sale occurred.

In October 2014, PAS and the bank signed a settlement agreement requiring PAS to pay a stipulated sum by December 2014 or the bank would foreclose on most of PAS’s assets, but not the Picú mark. The agreement provided that the bank would retain its lien over the mark until the foreclosure proceedings concluded. PAS failed to make the payment, but the bank did not exercise its foreclosure rights. In June 2017, PAS moved for the Commonwealth Court to order the bank to foreclose on PAS’s assets or declare PAS free of its obligations to the bank. The Commonwealth Court granted the motion in November 2019.

In April 2016, To-Ricos applied to register the Picú mark with the PTO. Three months later, PAS applied to re-register the same mark and filed an opposition to To-Ricos’s application. A year later, PAS licensed the right to use the Picú mark in the United States to IMEX. IMEX sold chicken under the mark for a few months but stopped after To-Ricos sent cease and desist letters.

In June 2019, To-Ricos began selling Picú branded chicken. It also filed a lawsuit against PAS, seeking a declaratory judgment establishing To-Ricos as the legal owner of the Picú mark. To-Ricos moved for summary judgment, arguing that PAS had abandoned its mark. PAS opposed. The district court agreed with To-Ricos, noting that PAS admitted to not having used the mark in commerce for at least three consecutive years prior to To-Ricos’s application, and that PAS had not demonstrated its intent to resume use of the mark within that period. PAS appealed.

PAS [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Blurred Vision: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Standing

by | Aug 29, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., Case No. 23-1227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024) (Moore, Taranto, JJ.; Checchi, Dist. J, sitting by designation).

Viavi Solutions owns a patent directed to optical filters that include layers of hydrogenated silicon and to sensor systems comprising such optical filters. Platinum Optics Technology (PTOT) petitioned for IPR. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board found that PTOT had failed to establish that the challenged claims were unpatentable. PTOT appealed.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that PTOT did not have Article III standing. The Court explained that while Article III standing is not required to appear before an administrative agency (such as the US Patent & Trademark Office), such standing is required once a party seeks judicial review in an Article III federal court. PTOT argued it had standing because of potential infringement liability due to its continued distribution of a product previously accused of infringing the patent and its development of new models of the previously accused product. The Court rejected both arguments.

First, PTOT asserted that it suffered an injury in fact because there was a likelihood that Viavi would sue again. PTOT relied on a letter from Viavi stating that it did not believe PTOT could fulfill its supply agreements with noninfringing products. The Federal Circuit disagreed with PTOT’s assertion, concluding that mere speculation about the possibility of suit, without more, is insufficient to confer Article III standing. Moreover, the Court noted that Viavi’s letter was sent prior to the patent infringement suits, which were dismissed with prejudice. Thus, the Court found that PTOT had not established an injury in fact based on potential infringement liability due to its continued distribution of a previously accused product.

Second, PTOT asserted that it suffered an injury in fact based on its development of new models of the previously accused product. PTOT’s argument was supported by a declaration from a Deputy Director of Operation Management at PTOT and the same letter from Viavi threatening future suit. The Federal Circuit did not find the declaration testimony compelling. It explained that the declaration, which generally alleged that PTOT continued to develop new models of the previously accused product, did not identify any specific concrete plans for PTOT to develop a product that might implicate the patent. The declaration did not explain the particulars of these new models or how the models might relate to the patent. The Court found that the declaration was insufficient to establish that PTOT’s development activities created a substantial risk of infringement or were likely to cause Viavi to assert infringement. The Court noted that the letter from Viavi did not specifically address models in development or foreclose PTOT’s ability to develop a noninfringing product.

Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded that PTOT failed to establish an injury [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Recipe for Rejection: Trademark Application Burnt by Specimen Flaws

by | Aug 22, 2024 |

The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board issued a precedential decision affirming a refusal to register a mark because there was no direct association between the specimen and the applied-for services. In re Gail Weiss, Serial No. 88621608 (July 31, 2024, TTAB) (Cataldo, Goodman, Pologeorgis, ATJ)

Gail Weiss applied to register the mark GABBY’S TABLE on the Principal Register for “computerized online retail store services in the field of food, cooking utensils, cookware, culinary arts cookbooks, magazines, and videos, and lifestyle books, magazines, and videos.” Weiss submitted a specimen of use that consisted of “website marketing and advertising.” The Examining Attorney refused registration on the grounds that the specimen failed to show the mark in use in commerce in connection with the identified services. The Examining Attorney argued that the specimen only showed a list of items recommended for purchase, but the website did not offer the consumer retail store services to purchase the goods. Instead, the website included a “buy now” button that redirected customers to third-party websites that offered to retain store services to consumers. Weiss appealed.

The issue before the Board was whether the specimen demonstrated a direct association between the GABBY’S TABLE mark and the online retail store services identified in the application. The Board found that the specimen did not meet this requirement as it only provided referrals to third-party websites where the products could be purchased. The Board also noted that the specimen lacked the essential elements of online retail store services, such as a virtual shopping cart, pricing, shipping information or any other indicia of online retail store services. The Board also found that the third-party stores provided commissions to affiliate websites like those in the specimen but did not constitute providing online retail store services. The Board therefore affirmed the refusal to register.

Practice Note: This decision highlights the necessity for applicants to provide specimens that demonstrate the use of the mark in connection with the identified services.



read more

Due Diligence Deficit Sinks Fraud Claims in Trademark Battle

by | Aug 22, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an independent action asserting “fraud on the court” based on the finding that the alleged fraud on the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) should have been uncovered by the exercise of due diligence in a prior action. Marco Destin Inc. v. Levy et al., Case No. 23-1330 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2024) (Jacobs, Sack, Sullivan, JJ.)

In 2007, L&L Wings filed a lawsuit against Marco Destin and related entities (collectively, Marco Destin) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims of breach of contract and trademark infringement related to Marco Destin’s unauthorized use of L&L’s unregistered trademark WINGS on beach apparel. Although L&L and Marco Destin entered into an allegedly valid temporary licensing agreement in 1998, L&L alleged that Marco Destin continued to use the mark after the agreement expired in 2006. Post-discovery, L&L revealed a recent trademark registration for the WINGS mark, causing L&L and Marco Destin to enter a stipulated order of settlement and dismissal in 2011. Marco Destin paid L&L $3.5 million, ceased using the WINGS mark, and agreed to never bring an action based on the WINGS mark or the 1998 temporary licensing agreement.

More than a decade later, Marco Destin sued L&L again in the Southern District of New York for “fraud on the court” and “fraud” and demanded vacatur, sanctions and damages due to key facts revealed in a separate unrelated Eastern District of North Carolina action. In relevant part, it was discovered that L&L was not the owner of the WINGS mark. Rather, an entity named Shepard Morrow owned the WINGS mark and licensed it to L&L for a brief period in the 1990s. L&L stopped paying the required licensing fees to Shepard Morrow and improperly licensed the unregistered WINGS mark to other entities (including Marco Destin). As a result, the Eastern District of North Carolina granted sanctions against L&L for failing to disclose Shepard Morrow’s trademark registration and license agreement, and L&L’s WINGS mark registration was cancelled as a consequence of L&L’s false representations to the PTO. L&L moved to dismiss Marco Destin’s New York complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the “fraud on the court” claim was an independent action for relief from a judgment under Rule 60(d)(3) and Marco Destin had a reasonable opportunity to discover L&L’s false representations during the initial litigation. Marco Destin appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed, reviewing the dismissal of an independent action for fraud on the court under FRCP 60(d)(3) for abuse of discretion. A party challenging a judgment may file either a timely motion within a fixed time window – one year under FRCP 60(b)(3) – or an independent action any time after that pursuant to FRCP 60(d)(3). Independent actions require a more demanding showing of fraud (such as fraud on the court itself) than a timely motion, and generally claimants seeking equitable relief through independent [...]

Continue Reading



read more

David-Versus-Goliath Trademark Victory Isn’t Necessarily “Exceptional”

by | Jul 25, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated an award of attorneys’ fees for reanalysis, explaining that the district court’s finding that the case was “exceptional” under the Lanham Act was based on policy considerations rather than the totality of the circumstances. Lontex Corp. v. Nike, Inc., Case Nos. 22-1417; -1418 (3rd Cir. July 10, 2024) (Hardiman, Matey, Phipps, JJ.)

Lontex Corporation is a small Pennsylvania business that manufactures and sells compression apparel to professional athletes and the public. Since 2008 it has held a registered trademark for the mark COOL COMPRESSION, which it used in conjunction with its sale of apparel. In 2015, Nike rebranded an athletic clothing line that included a category of “Cool” products designed to reduce body temperature, as well as various fits, including “Compression.” It also began using the words “Cool” and “Compression” together in the names of Nike clothing products sold online and in Nike catalogues. Nike used “Cool Compression” as a product name on tech sheets, which are internal documents used to explain Nike products to employees and third-party retailers.

The following year, upon discovering Nike’s use of the phrase “Cool Compression,” Lontex sent Nike a cease-and-desist letter. Nike’s lawyers directed the company to stop using the phrase “as soon as possible.” Nike took steps to remove the phrase from its website and catalogs but not its tech sheets. Two years later, Nike reached out to its third-party retailers and asked them to stop using “Compression” in product names.

Lontex sued Nike for trademark infringement of its COOL COMPRESSION mark, for contributory infringement based on its supply of “Cool Compression” products to retailers, and for counterfeiting. The district court dismissed the counterfeiting claim, and a jury trial was held on the infringement actions. The jury returned a verdict for Lontex, finding Nike liable for willful and contributory infringement. The jury awarded Lontex $142,000 in compensatory damages and $365,000 in punitive damages but declined to award Lontex disgorgement of Nike’s profits.

Post-trial, Nike renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law on fair use, trademark infringement, contributory infringement, willfulness and punitive damages. Lontex moved for disgorgement of profits and trebling of the damages awarded by the jury. The district court granted Lontex’s request for treble damages, increased the compensatory award to $426,000, and separately awarded Lontex almost $5 million in attorneys’ fees after finding that the case was “exceptional” under the Lanham Act. Both parties appealed.

As to the willfulness finding, Nike argued that the jury should not have been permitted to infer willfulness solely from its continued use of the mark after it received its cease-and-desist letter. The Third Circuit disagreed, pointing out that not only did Nike adopt the “Cool Compression” phrase without doing a trademark search, it also continued to use the phrase after receiving Lontex’s cease-and-desist letter and being advised by its own legal team to stop using it as soon as possible. The Court concluded that a jury could reasonably infer willful infringement. For similar reasons, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

What Makes a Trademark Case “Exceptional” in the Fifth Circuit?

by | Jul 11, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a senior party mark but found that the district court committed clear error in finding that a similar junior party mark was valid. The Fifth Circuit also found that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to the senior user. Appliance Liquidation Outlet, L.L.C. v. Axis Supply Corp., Case No. 23-50413 (5th Cir. June 21, 2024) (Smith, Haynes, Douglas, JJ.)

Appliance Liquidation Outlet (ALO), a decades-old appliance store in San Antonio, Texas, brought a trademark action under the Lanham Act and Texas law (which in all relevant aspects tracks the Lanham Act) against Axis Supply Corporation, another San Antonio appliance store that opened in 2021. Axis’s store and social media prominently featured the phrase “Appliance Liquidation”:

ALO noted that Axis’s opening happened to coincide with an influx of customers conflating ALO with Axis. ALO’s storefront had prominently displayed a banner reciting “Appliance Liquidation Outlet” for years:

Although ALO had never registered its mark, ALO had long engaged in a variety of promotional activities to raise brand recognition, including partnering with local sports teams and holding antique exhibitions and car shows.

Soon after Axis opened its store, ALO experienced a rush of customers who failed to differentiate between the stores and believed that ALO operated both. ALO requested that Axis stop using “Appliance Liquidation” and sued Axis in state court when Axis refused. Axis removed the dispute to the federal district court. After a bench trial, the district court held for ALO, enjoining Axis from using “Appliance Liquidation” and “Appliance Liquidation Outlet” and causing confusion between the two businesses. The district court also awarded attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) to ALO, finding that Axis’s decision to change its name only a week before trial (about 1.5 years into the dispute) amounted to litigating in an unreasonable manner. Axis appealed.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Axis had infringed ALO’s “Appliance Liquidation Outlet” mark but assigned clear error to the district court’s finding that “Appliance Liquidation” was valid mark. The Fifth Circuit also found that the district court had abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to ALO.

With respect to the marks’ validity, the Fifth Circuit noted that both marks were unregistered and thus were not presumptively valid. The Court found that the record did not support the conclusion that “Appliance Liquidation” was a source identifier and thus found that it was not a valid mark. However, the Fifth Circuit was satisfied that “Appliance Liquidation Outlet” served as a source identifier. The Court found that although “Appliance Liquidation Outlet” was descriptive, the evidence established that San Antonian consumers perceived the mark as conveying information about ALO, not merely reflecting a class of services [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES