Lanham Act Archives

Lanham Act

Baseball was very good to Roberto: Lanham Act permits claims against government officials in personal capacity

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Jan 29, 2026 | Trademarks

In a decision addressing the intersection of trademark law, sovereign immunity, and constitutional takings, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit partially revived Lanham Act claims brought by the heirs of baseball legend Roberto Clemente against senior officials of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. While affirming dismissal of claims against the Commonwealth itself and related public entities, the Court concluded that certain Lanham Act claims against individual government officials in their personal capacities were plausibly alleged and not barred by qualified immunity at the pleading stage. Clemente Props., Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia, Case No. 23-1922, 2026 WL 125574 (1st Cir. Jan. 16, 2026) (Barron, Lipez, Thompson, JJ.)

The plaintiffs, Clemente’s sons and affiliated entities, alleged that Commonwealth officials improperly used Clemente’s name and likeness on commemorative license plates and registration tags without authorization. Proceeds from the program were directed toward a public initiative intended to replace an earlier Clemente-founded project. Plaintiffs claimed trademark infringement, false endorsement, false advertising, and dilution under the Lanham Act, as well as a taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants moved to dismiss on immunity grounds and for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motions in full. Plaintiffs appealed.

The First Circuit reversed in part. The Court rejected the district court’s conclusion that the use of Clemente’s name and image was not “in connection with” goods or services under the Lanham Act. The Court explained that commemorative license plates and tags qualify as goods, and the fact that they were issued by a government entity did not remove them from the statute’s commercial scope. The Court also pointed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark ID Manual, which expressly recognizes license plates as registrable goods, and found no persuasive basis for excluding fundraising activities supporting the Roberto Clemente Sports District Fund from trademark scrutiny.

The First Circuit further concluded that plaintiffs adequately alleged commercial injury within the Lanham Act’s zone of interests and plausibly pleaded likelihood of confusion, including the mistaken impression that the Clemente family endorsed or financially benefited from the initiative. Accordingly, dismissal of Lanham Act claims under Section 32 (trademark infringement), Section 43(a) (false endorsement), and Section 43(c) (dilution) was improper with regard to officials sued in their personal capacities.

Sovereign immunity remained a shield for the Commonwealth, the Convention Center District Authority, and officials sued in their official capacities. However, the First Circuit concluded that qualified immunity did not bar the personal-capacity Lanham Act claims at the pleading stage and thus vacated dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the false advertising claim, determining that plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants’ statements constituted commercial advertising or promotion as required under Section 43(a)(1)(B). The Court also affirmed dismissal of the Takings Clause claim, concluding that alleged infringements of intangible intellectual property do not support a categorical physical-taking theory and cannot be analyzed using frameworks applicable to physical occupation or appropriation.

Finally, the First Circuit deemed waived any [...]

Continue Reading

Solidarity: Union’s commercial use may be Lanham Act violation

by Cecilia Choy, PhD | Sep 18, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a Lanham Act action, finding that this case was not the rare instance where there was no plausible likelihood that a reasonably prudent consumer would be confused about the origin of the goods that allegedly bore the distinctive marks at issue. Trader Joe’s Co. v. Trader Joe’s United, Case Nos. 24-720; -2826 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) (Sanchez, Thomas, Donato, JJ.)

Trader Joe’s, a US grocery store chain, owns the red typeface logo and sells reusable tote bags and other branded goods bearing its marks. Trader Joe’s United (TJU), a labor union representing certain Trader Joe’s employees, markets (for profit) various products via its website, including reusable tote bags. Its website header features a logo that uses the distinctive red typeface and the concentric circle design in Trader Joe’s logo. The image below shows totes from Trader Joe’s (left) and TJU (right).

TJU allegedly began using Trader Joe’s marks in commerce, and Trader Joe’s sent TJU a cease-and-desist letter. Trader Joe’s noted that its demand was directed solely at TJU’s commercial use of the marks on merchandise sold to consumers on the TJU website, not the reference to Trader Joe’s to identify the union or discuss the union’s cause.

Trader Joe’s sued TJU, asserting several claims, including trademark infringement, and sought to permanently enjoin TJU from using Trader Joe’s trademarks in connection with the sale of commercial merchandise on the TJU website. Trader Joe’s also sought the destruction of all infringing merchandise and recovery of damages. TJU moved to dismiss, arguing that Trader Joe’s filed its trademark infringement complaint in retaliation over an ongoing labor dispute and asserting that there was no plausible likelihood that a consumer would believe that products sold on TJU’s website were sponsored, endorsed, or approved by Trader Joe’s.

Applying the Sleekcraft likelihood-of-confusion factors, the district court agreed with TJU and noted several differences between the marks. The district court also explained that Trader Joe’s does not sell many of the products sold on TJU’s website, including buttons, t-shirts, and mugs. The district court concluded that confusion about the origin of these products was unlikely for a reasonable consumer because TJU’s website clearly identified itself as a website of a labor union and was openly critical of Trader Joe’s labor practices. Trader Joe’s appealed.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that when the allegations were viewed in the light most favorable to Trader Joe’s, the district court erred when applying the fact-specific likelihood-of-confusion test. To prevail on a trademark infringement claim, Trader Joe’s would need to establish that it had a protectible ownership interest in the mark and that TJU’s use of the mark was likely to cause consumer confusion. To determine whether a reasonably prudent consumer [...]

Continue Reading

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

Standing: Don’t get owned by incorrect trademark ownership

by Jolie B. Schenerman | Sep 4, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a trademark and unfair competition suit, ruling that the plaintiff did not own the asserted trademark. The Court also held that the owner of the trademark failed to ratify the action and therefore the plaintiff did not have standing to assert unfair competition claims. Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Ctr., Inc., Case No. 24-490 (2d Cir. Aug. 26, 2025) (Park, Nathan, Perez, JJ.)

In March 2018, the US Patent & Trademark Office granted Ripple Analytics a federal trademark for RIPPLE in connection with human resources software. The following month, Ripple assigned all rights to its intellectual property to co-founder Noah Pusey via an assignment agreement. Around the same time, People Center applied to register RIPPLING for similar software. It later abandoned the application but continued to operate under the Rippling name.

Ripple sued People Center in 2020 for trademark infringement and unfair competition. During discovery, Ripple produced the assignment agreement. People Center responded by moving to amend its answer, seeking dismissal for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest and requesting summary judgment.

The district court found that Pusey, not Ripple, was the real party in interest and dismissed the case because Pusey had not ratified the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. It also dismissed the unfair competition claims for lack of standing and denied Ripple’s motion to amend the complaint as futile. Ripple appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding that Ripple had “unambiguously” assigned all intellectual property rights, including the trademark at issue, to Pusey, making him the real party in interest. The Court emphasized that the assignment agreement transferred all of Ripple’s “claims, causes of action, and rights to sue,” regardless of when those claims arose. Ripple argued that Pusey satisfied Rule 17 by ratifying the pleadings and agreeing to be a plaintiff. The Court rejected this argument, noting that Pusey’s declaration stating his involvement in the case and strong interest in its outcome did not amount to an agreement to be bound by the suit, a requirement for ratification.

The Second Circuit determined that Ripple’s Lanham Act unfair competition claims failed because they were based on the inaccurate assertion that Ripple owned the RIPPLE mark. The Second Circuit also upheld the district court’s denial of Ripple’s motion to amend its complaint, explaining that the assignment agreement expressly barred Ripple from bringing suit.

Practice note: Before initiating trademark litigation, practitioners should conduct thorough due diligence on ownership to avoid standing issues. Defendants should consider initiating early discovery on ownership of the rights being asserted.

It’s not monkey business: NFTs can be trademarked

by Ashley K. Justice | Jul 31, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that a non-fungible token (NFT) is a “good” under the Lanham Act but reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for trademark infringement because the owner did not prove as a matter of law that the defendants’ use was likely to cause confusion. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the defendants’ counterclaim for declaratory relief regarding copyright ownership. Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen, Case No. 24-879 (9th Cir. July 23, 2025) (Bade, Forrest, Curiel, JJ.)

Yuga Labs is the creator of the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFT collection. Yuga created this collection through a smart contract recorded on the blockchain Ethereum. Each BAYC NFT has a cartoon of a bored ape and a sequential unique identifier called an ape ID. Per its terms and conditions, BAYC NFT consumers receive commercial and personal rights free of royalty fees.

Ryder Ripps and Jermey Cahen created the Ryder Ripps Bored Ape Yacht Club (RR/BAYC) using the same ape images and ape IDs. The collection was also hosted on an Ethereum blockchain smart contract. They criticized Yuga for “using neo-Nazi symbolism, alt-right dog whistles, and racist imagery” and alleged that they created RR/BAYC as satire and criticism. Ripps made the RR/BAYC smart contracts’ names “Bored Ape Yacht Club” and made the smart contract symbol “BAYC.” Ripps’ website includes an artist statement that the artwork is a “new mint of BAYC imagery.” NFT marketplace websites for RR/BAYC displayed a large header “Bored Ape Yacht Club” and in a smaller text “@ryder_ripps.”

Yuga sued Ripps and Cahen for several claims, including trademark infringement based on a false designation of origin theory, false advertising, and cybersquatting. In response, the defendants asserted that Yuga did not have enforceable trademark rights, and even if it did, the defendants’ use was protected by fair use and the First Amendment. The defendants asserted several counterclaims, including knowing misrepresentation of infringing activity under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), and sought declaratory judgment of no copyright ownership.

The district court granted Yuga’s motion for summary judgment on its false designation of origin and cybersquatting claims. Yuga withdrew its remaining claims, so the trial proceeded only for equitable remedies on the false designation of origin and cybersquatting. At trial, the district court found that Yuga’s BAYC marks were unregistered trademarks. The district court awarded Yuga disgorgement of the defendants’ profits, maximum statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees after finding that the case was exceptional due to the defendants’ willful infringement, bad faith intent to profit, and litigation conduct. The defendants were also permanently enjoined. The defendants appealed the grant of summary judgment and sought vacatur of the remedies.

The Ninth Circuit first addressed the defendants’ argument that NFTs are not goods protected by the Lanham Act. The Court concluded that NFTs are goods under the Lanham Act based on a US Patent & Trademark Office report that determined them as such. The Court also [...]

Continue Reading

Sound the alarm: Fourth Circuit affirms $190 million verdict based on deceptive trade practices

by Dexter Hamilton | Jul 31, 2025 | Uncategorized

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a $190 million verdict based on deceptive trade practices, concluding that the district court performed well within its discretion in making the procedural ruling and that the jury verdict was fully supported by the evidence. CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home Inc., Legacy Vivint Smart Home, Inc., Case No. 24-1120 (4th Cir. July 22, 2025) (Benjamin, Berner, Niemeyer, JJ.)

CPI Security Systems and Vivint Smart Home are competitors in the home security industry. CPI sued Vivint in 2020 alleging violation of the Lanham Act and North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), and the common law torts of unfair competition and tortious interference with contracts. CPI’s claims were based on allegations that Vivint used deceptive tactics for door-to-door sales that caused CPI customers to confuse Vivint’s salespeople with CPI representatives. CPI alleged that those customers “unwillingly found themselves with Vivint’s alarm systems installed in their homes and with contractual obligations to both Vivint and CPI.”

During trial, CPI presented testimony from customers who had been solicited by Vivint salespeople. The customers all testified to deceptive tactics. For example, one customer testified that a Vivint representative told her Vivint was acquiring CPI and that she would therefore “no longer have CPI for [her] security company.” The customer was “scared and worried” and signed a contract with Vivint. Another customer testified that a Vivint sales representative claimed to be “with CPI” and was “one of the guys that installed [his] CPI system.”

CPI presented additional evidence to show that these practices were “widespread and systematic,” and that Vivint sales representatives had similarly targeted customers of other competitors. Vivint was aware of the conduct, because, for example, “16 state attorneys general had brought enforcement actions against Vivint for its sales agents’ conduct.”

The jury found in favor of CPI and awarded a combination of compensatory and punitive damages totaling nearly $190 million. Vivint appealed.

Vivint argued that CPI failed to prove reliance on the false statements made to CPI customers, which it claimed was an essential element of a UDTPA claim. Vivint argued that CPI itself must have relied on the false statements, rather than just the customers. The Fourth Circuit rejected Vivint’s argument, in part because:

The UDTPA “is broader and covers more than” fraud.
CPI’s claim was “grounded on unfair competition.”
Unfair competition claims do not require a showing of reliance.

Vivint also argued that CPI had not presented sufficient evidence to support the damages award. CPI had presented evidence to support four distinct categories of damages, and the jury did not specify which category or categories were included in each award. The Fourth Circuit explained that CPI was not required “to show an exact dollar amount with mathematical precision” and had presented evidence that “considered as a whole, was sufficient to allow the jury to reasonably estimate that CPI’s [compensatory] damages were $49.7 million.”

Vivint argued that “at minimum, judgment should be vacated and [...]

Continue Reading

Clean bill of health: Only domestic activities count when analyzing likelihood of confusion

by Hannah Hurley | Jul 24, 2025 | Trademarks

Affirming a summary judgment decision finding no trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that the district court properly focused on domestic activity with regard to the allegedly infringing trademark. Doctor’s Best, Inc. v. Nature’s Way Products, LLC, Case No. 24-2719 (9th Cir. July 15, 2025) (Paez, Ikuta, Nelson, JJ.) (Ikuta, J., concurring).

Doctor’s Best (DB) manufactures nutritional supplements under the mark NATURE’S DAY at its California facility. Although the products bear English labels compliant with US regulations, they are marketed and sold exclusively in China, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Nature’s Way Products (NWP), owner of the long-standing US trademark NATURE’S WAY, opposed DB’s attempt to register NATURE’S DAY in the United States, citing potential consumer confusion. After NWP sent a cease-and-desist letter, DB preemptively sued for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. NWP counterclaimed for trademark infringement under Sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

In June 2023, the Supreme Court held in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc. that the Lanham Act’s infringement provisions apply only to domestic “use in commerce.” DB moved for summary judgment, arguing that its only domestic activity – transporting products within the US – did not create a likelihood of confusion among US consumers. The district court agreed, finding that DB’s domestic transport of Nature’s Day products was insufficient to support a claim of infringement. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that this conduct would confuse US consumers and granted summary judgment in favor of DB. NWP appealed.

NWP argued that any domestic use in commerce, however minimal, triggered the full likelihood-of-confusion analysis, even if confusion occurred abroad. The Ninth Circuit rejected this interpretation, holding that Abitron requires courts to first identify domestic use before evaluating confusion. The Court found that DB’s manufacturing and transport activities were the only relevant domestic conduct.

Turning to likelihood of confusion, the Ninth Circuit applied the eight-factor test set forth in its 1979 decision in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats:

Strength of the mark
Proximity or relatedness of the goods
Similarity of the marks
Evidence of actual confusion
Marketing channels used
Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark
The likelihood of expansion of the product lines

Reviewing the Sleekcraft factors, the Ninth Circuit concluded that no genuine dispute existed as to the likelihood of confusion. DB’s products were sold exclusively overseas while NWP’s products were sold only in the US. The Court emphasized that confusion must occur among domestic consumers to be actionable under the Lanham Act, and that did not occur here.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Ikuta agreed with the outcome but clarified that DB’s transport of products constituted a domestic use in commerce. However, she found no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether that use caused domestic confusion, reiterating that Abitron excludes extraterritorial confusion from the analysis.

Damages on Default Judgment Not Barred by Absence of Precise Amount in Complaint

by Amit Kumar Saha, PhD | May 8, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision, allowing collection of actual damages in a default judgment where the complaint only sought damages “in an amount to be determined at trial.” AirDoctor, LLC v. Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co., Ltd., Case No. 24-215 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2025) (Friedland, J.) (Berzon, Kennelly JJ., concurring) (per curiam).

AirDoctor produces and sells air purification products, including branded filters designed specifically for its machines. In 2022, AirDoctor discovered that Xiamen Qichuang Trade had sold tens of thousands of unauthorized replacement filters that were marketed as compatible with AirDoctor products. These filters were allegedly labeled with AirDoctor’s registered trademarks, including AIRDOCTOR and ULTRAHEPA, without permission. AirDoctor asserted that these actions constituted trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and related state laws.

AirDoctor filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages “in an amount to be determined at trial.” Xiamen did not respond or appear in the litigation, and the court entered a default judgment against it. AirDoctor subsequently moved for approximately $2.5 million in actual damages, calculated based on the number of infringing units sold, along with $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The district court entered a default judgment in Air Doctor’s favor but declined to award damages or attorneys’ fees. The court reasoned that Fed. R. Civ. Pro 54(c) barred monetary relief in default judgments unless the complaint demanded a specific sum. Since AirDoctor’s complaint did not include a precise dollar amount, the court concluded that granting the requested monetary relief would exceed what was demanded in the pleadings and thus violate Rule 54(c). AirDoctor appealed.

The issue before the Ninth Circuit was whether the district court erred in interpreting Rule 54(c) to prohibit an award of actual damages in a default judgment where the complaint requested “damages in an amount to be determined at trial” but did not specify a fixed damages amount. Xiamen did not appear on appeal either.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that Rule 54(c) does not require a complaint to state a specific sum of damages for a court to award actual damages after a default judgment. The Court emphasized that the rule’s purpose is to prevent awards that are fundamentally different in kind or amount from those for which the defendant had been put on notice by the complaint, not to deny recovery when the type of relief was clearly identified, even if the amount was not. The Court noted that AirDoctor had clearly requested actual damages in its complaint and had indicated that the precise amount would be determined later, which was sufficient to give Xiamen fair notice of the relief sought. Relying on its 1974 decision in Henry v. Sneiders, the Court reaffirmed that actual damages may be awarded in default cases even if the complaint does not state a dollar figure, as long as the damages are of the same kind as those demanded.

The Ninth Circuit clarified that Rule [...]

Continue Reading

No Bull: Historically Generic Term Can Become Non-Generic

by Amit Kumar Saha, PhD | Mar 20, 2025 | Trademarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Trade Dress Requires Separate Articulation and Distinctiveness Requirements

by Ashley K. Justice | Feb 20, 2025 | Trademarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS