As expected, based on the tenor of the Justices’ questions during oral argument, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a trademark applicant seeking to register a mark commenting on former President Donald Trump. The decision represents something of a shift from prior decisions striking down portions of the federal Lanham Act on First Amendment
In what appears to be a shift from prior decisions striking down portions of the federal Lanham Act on First Amendment grounds, the U.S. Supreme Court seems likely to rule against a trademark applicant seeking to register a mark commenting on former President Donald Trump.
As we wrote earlier this year, the Supreme Court
Seyfarth attorneys Aaron Belzer, Lauren Leipold, Ken Wilton, and Renée Appel will present at the Association of National Advertisers’ Legal Affairs Committee meeting on Thursday, October 19, 2023.
The team will present on the following topics:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s end-of-term decision in Abitron v. Hetronic seems to have created more questions than answers about U.S. brand owners’ ability to leverage the federal Lanham Act in global trademark disputes. In the few weeks since the Court issued its opinion, parties and courts alike are already struggling with exactly how to apply it.
The Hetronic case originated in the Tenth Circuit. Oklahoma-based Hetronic, a manufacturer of remote controls for construction equipment, sued its former EU distributor for infringing trademarks and trade dress associated with authentic Hetronic products. A jury awarded Hetronic more than $115 million in damages, $96 million of which related to Lanham Act violations. The district court then granted Hetronic a worldwide injunction against defendant Abitron. Abitron appealed, arguing that the award was improper because 97 percent of the sales at issue occurred abroad. The Tenth Circuit tailored the injunction to apply only to markets where Hetronic was actually selling products, but upheld the damage award, reasoning that even activity occurring abroad had a “substantial effect” on U.S. commerce.Continue Reading Courts and Brand Owners Struggling With SCOTUS Decision Limiting Ability to Police Against Foreign Trademark Infringement
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to show interest in trademark issues with its recent grant of certiorari in another case pitting the Lanham Act against the First Amendment.
Applicant Steve Elster applied to register the trademark TRUMP TOO SMALL for t-shirts back in 2018. The US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration on the
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Ninth Circuit’s opinion that a poop-themed dog toy should be protected as parody under the First Amendment. SCOTUS ruled today in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products, Inc. that the right to free expression does not excuse “trademark law’s cardinal sin”—use of another’s trademark “as a
This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s International Dispute Resolution Blog.
There is a little-known provision of the Lanham Act (the US Trademark Act) that packs a potentially big punch. 15 USC § 1051(e) provides that if a non-U.S. entity registers for a trademark in the United States without designating a United States resident
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in not one, but two trademark cases with huge implications on commercial activity in the U.S. and abroad. The justices had a bit of fun—and even laughed at points when hypotheticals highlighted the absurdity of what consumers might encounter in today’s online marketplace—but at the end of
A new federal law requires increased transparency in online sales transactions with the aim of protecting consumers against fraudsters and counterfeiters that historically have been able to hide anonymously behind unverified seller profiles.
The Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces (“INFORM”) Consumers Act, signed into law by President Biden on December 29, 2022