Tag Archives: trademark

“Herbal” doesn’t include animal products

VBS Distribution, Inc. v. Nutrivita Laboratories, Inc., — Fed.Appx. —-, 2017 WL 4118381, No. 17-55198 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2017) VBS makes a commercial television live auction show named “DAU GIA TREN TRUYEN HINH” (“Fight Price on Television”). It primarily … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Reading list: the consumer in TM law

Kimberlee G. Weatherall, The Consumer as the Empirical Measure of Trade Mark Law, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. 57-87, 2017 Although consumer responses to signs and symbols lie at the heart of trade mark law, courts … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

SPIRE-inspired TM suit fails to enjoin noncompetitor

Spire, Inc. v. Cellular South, Inc., 2017 WL 3995759, No. 17-00266 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 11, 2017) Spire, a provider of natural gas fueling services, sought a declaratory judgment against Cellular South, d/b/a C SPIRE, a wireless telecommunications provider that also … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Comparison to former licensor’s products isn’t trademark infringement

Alpha Pro Tech, Inc. v. VWR Int’l, LLC, No. 12-1615, 2017 WL 3671264 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2017) APT sued VWR, a competitor in the market for nonwoven, disposable laboratory apparel for use in clean rooms and similar environments. VWR … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

state courts do nominative fair use too

Instant Infosystems, Inc. v. Open Text, Inc., 2017 WL 3634547, No. B276691 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2017) Another illustration of the principle that courts don’t like to do two dilution analyses—this state court only talks about federal dilution, assuming … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Bad dilution claims are so common that they aren’t “exceptional” for fee-shifting, court rules

Parks, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2017 WL 3534993, No. 15-cv-00946 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2017) Tyson sought attorneys’ fees in this Lanham Act case after its summary judgment victory was affirmed by the Third Circuit. The court found that … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Comparative advertising using P’s logo is nominative fair use

SolarEdge Technologies Inc. v. Enphase Energy, Inc., 2017 WL 3453378 17-cv-04047 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2017) SolarEdge sued Enphase, a competitor in the business of selling electronic components for solar panels (aka PV modules), for false advertising and trademark infringement.  … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment