Seyfarth has been recognized in World Intellectual Property Review’s inaugural rankings of the leading USA trademark firms and lawyers. WIPR cited Seyfarth as “recommended” for its Non-Contentious Trademark and “notable” for its Contentious Trademark work. Individually, Ken Wilton was “recommended” for his Contentious Trademark work. WIPR bases its rankings on “research that included

The Federal Circuit partially refuted the long held assumption that the trademark applicant has the burden of proving third party marks were in use when determining the strength of the applicant mark. The panel led by Judge Dyk found that when determining the conceptual strength of trademarks, “absent proof of non-use [of registered marks], use

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.

Tenth Circuit Prompts Question As to Statute’s Reach

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

A recent lawsuit filed in Washington state court alleging trademark infringement by AmerikanWeed, Palmer v. Komm, illustrates the importance of protecting intellectual property in the cannabis industry.[1]

Because the plaintiffs obtained a Washington state trademark registration, their recourse is limited to that state. To have recourse against infringement outside Washington, a federal registration may provide

The new social media platform Threads was launched on July 5, 2023. Reports indicate that within the first day of launch, more than 30 million users have signed up. The app is designed for text-based conversations instead of photo updates. As users rush to join the platform, brands should also prioritize claiming accounts in order

On May 8, 2023, the USPTO announced its preliminary proposal to adjust its schedule of trademark fees, which was last modified January 2, 2021.[i]  The USPTO states that the existing fee schedule does not allow for enough revenue because of (1) the change in both applicant filing behaviors and trademark demand, and (2)

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

This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.

Recently, we published an article regarding the increasing viability of cannabis related patents. See here. Sadly, the story is the opposite for federal trademarks. Last month, National Concessions Group, Inc. (“NCG”) was denied federal registration for its trademarks: BAKKED and

(collectively 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