Newsletter RSS

Mealey's Trademarks

  • October 28, 2025

    Injunction Granted, Trademark Use Enjoined In Counterfeit Insurance Policy Dispute

    JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida granted a preliminary injunction to an insurance holding company barring a captive operator and its affiliates from using the holding company’s name and trademarks in connection with allegedly unauthorized insurance policies and certificates of insurance.

  • October 27, 2025

    5th Circuit Vacates Fees, Damages Against Law Firm Name Fakers In IP Fight

    NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Texas federal judge’s grant of summary judgment to a law firm on its trademark claims against a man and two attorneys who made a fake website using the law firm’s name as part of a landlord-tenant dispute, but the panel vacated more than $2 million in damages and fees the judge ordered to be paid to the real law firm, finding that the judge failed to explain the basis for the award.

  • October 23, 2025

    Judge Tosses Lawyer’s Suit Seeking Leave To Make Unlicensed NFL Shirts

    NEW YORK — A New York federal judge dismissed a complaint brought by a self-described “‘annoyance lawyer’” against NFL Properties LLC (NFLP), exercising judicial discretion to decline to proceed with a complaint seeking a declaration that he can make T-shirts bearing various NFL trademarks without running afoul of federal trademark laws.

  • October 17, 2025

    2nd Circuit Affirms Fee Award Against Law Firm In Podcast Trademark Fight

    NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed an attorney fee award against a law firm that represented a technology company that brought trademark claims against a podcast company over the name of one of its shows, holding that the case was “exceptional” as described in the Lanham Act because the underlying suit was frivolous and brought in bad faith in pursuance of a settlement.

  • October 17, 2025

    Glovemaker Seeks High Court Consideration Of Glove Color Mark Genericness

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A medical product company that saw its proposed trademark on the color of its medical gloves rejected as generic by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals asks the U.S. Supreme Court in a petition for a writ of certiorari whether there is a “special rule” that applies to the generic nature of proposed color marks.

  • October 14, 2025

    6th Circuit Affirms Contempt Finding In Kentucky Colonel Trademark Dispute

    CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Oct. 14 that a Kentucky federal judge did not abuse her discretion by holding a pro se appellant in contempt for failing to comply with a permanent injunction barring him from using a mark associated with the honorary title of “Kentucky Colonel.”  The panel also affirmed the judge’s decision to order the man to pay attorney fees and costs.

  • October 14, 2025

    11th Circuit Finds Sanctionable Conduct In Energy Drink IP Row But Vacates Award

    ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Florida federal judge’s finding of bad faith against an energy drink maker’s counsel in a trade dress infringement dispute against rival drink makers, agreeing that the attorneys engaged in sanctionable conduct during the discovery process; however, the panel vacated the judge’s nearly $250,000 sanctions award, finding it to have been improperly calculated.

  • October 13, 2025

    9th Circuit Affirms $4 Million Judgment Against Supplement Counterfeiters

    SAN FRANCISCO — A panel in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a California federal judge’s decision to award a supplement maker and its founder a $4 million judgment and nearly $5.3 million in attorney fees after entering default judgment against entities that the supplement maker accused of counterfeiting its products, finding that the appellant entities were not prejudiced by the judge’s decision to enter default judgment without considering the entities’ motions to set aside default.

  • October 13, 2025

    9th Circuit Affirms Judgment For Car Maker In ‘Lambo’ Cybersquatting Dispute

    SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel found no error in an Arizona federal judge’s grant of summary judgment to Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) in a cybersquatting dispute with a web domain holder, agreeing that the attempt to sell the domain “lambo.com” to the luxury carmaker for $75 million was indicative of bad faith.

  • October 10, 2025

    Judge Finds Plaintiff Owns No U.S. Rights To Mexican Band’s Mark

    DALLAS — A Texas federal judge held that a 2009 agreement regarding the intellectual property rights associated with a band from Mexico concerned trademark rights in that country only and not those in the United States, dooming much of a complaint brought by the son of the band’s longtime manager against the daughter of a founding member and other individuals.

  • October 08, 2025

    High Court Won’t Consider If Federal Circuit Erred On Hip Implant Color Mark

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a medical ceramics company’s petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving in place a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals holding that the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) correctly canceled its marks because the pink color of its artificial hip parts was a functional element of an expired patent.

  • October 07, 2025

    Supreme Court Denies Certiorari To Crocs In Sprawling Patent, False Ad Row

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 denied Crocs Inc.’s petition for a writ of certiorari in which the company argued that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals improperly expanded the federal false advertising statute to include intangible concepts, including statements about whether a product is patented.

  • October 07, 2025

    Supreme Court Denies Certiorari For Floor Tape Patent, False Ad Row

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari from entities that make floor-marking tape and argued that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should not have affirmed an Ohio federal judge’s finding that the patent at issue was anticipated by prior art.

  • October 07, 2025

    High Court Invites U.S. Input On 2nd Circuit’s Trademark Similarity Analysis

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 invited the U.S. government to participate in briefing while the justices consider whether to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by a coffee brewing company that argues the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals “stands alone” in considering a trademark’s strength a question of law and not a question of fact.

  • October 07, 2025

    No High Court Consideration Of PTO’s ‘Space Force’ Mark Rejection

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 rejected an attorney’s petition for a writ of certiorari, declining to hear his argument that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals inappropriately deferred to the interpretation used by the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of a section of the Lanham Act when affirming the TTAB’s rejection of his application for a mark for US SPACE FORCE filed only days after President Donald J. Trump’s first proposals regarding the branch.

  • October 03, 2025

    Judge Tosses Temu’s Antitrust Claims Against Shein But Lets IP Claims Survive

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in the District of Columbia dismissed much of a suit brought by the company behind online store Temu against the company behind competitor Shein, tossing claims of trade secret misappropriation, antitrust violations and others, but the judge will allow claims of copyright and trade dress infringement, along with other intellectual property claims, to proceed.

  • October 02, 2025

    4th Circuit Rejects Petition To Reconsider Injunction For Dance Team’s Mark Use

    RICHMOND, Va. — The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied a charter school and its parent-teacher organization’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving in place a panel’s September ruling that affirmed a North Carolina judge’s decision to deny the school entities’ request for a preliminary injunction against a local dance company in the parties’ dispute over a trademark on a logo using the name “Inspire.”

  • October 02, 2025

    Judge Grants Summary Judgment On Some Counterclaims In ‘Vampire’ Wine Mark Row

    TAMPA, Fla. — In a dispute over imported Romanian wine bearing marks related to the vampire Dracula, a federal judge in Florida partly granted a motion for partial summary judgment, setting aside counterclaims and affirmative defenses that suggested that the plaintiff entity committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to obtain its marks.

  • October 01, 2025

    Federal Circuit: Multiple Errors In Hookless Curtain Infringement Findings

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel issued a mixed opinion Sept. 30 in a long-running intellectual property dispute over hookless shower curtains, affirming a New York federal judge’s findings that one appellant company infringed multiple patents but vacating or reversing findings that another appellant company infringed the patents; the panel also vacated trademark and trade dress infringement findings against the appellant companies and set aside attorney fees.

  • October 01, 2025

    11th Circuit Affirms Fees In 5th Consideration Of Commodores Mark Appeal

    ATLANTA — Considering an appeal related to the case for the fifth time, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel upheld a Florida federal judge’s decision to award attorney fees in “protracted litigation” involving trademarks related to the funk band The Commodores against one of its founding members who formed groups with similar names after departing from the group.

  • September 26, 2025

    Federal Circuit:  TTAB Misapplied DuPont Factors For Trademark Application

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) erred in its consideration of two of the likelihood-of-confusion factors when weighing whether to allow a banking entity to register marks using the name “Aspire Bank,” a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held Sept. 25 in an opinion that affirmed other aspects of the board’s analysis.

  • September 26, 2025

    Judge: No Summary Judgment On IP Claims In Learning Materials Sharing Case

    HARTFORD, Conn. — A Connecticut federal judge held that the owner of an online platform that allows users to share educational resources with each other will face copyright and trademark claims from a private university in the state, but the judge granted the platform owner’s motion for summary judgment as to certain state law claims.

  • September 24, 2025

    Lilly, Medical Centers’ Trademark Dispute Settlement Halted By Federal Judge

    SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge refused to sign off on a joint motion filed by Eli Lilly and Co., two medical centers and two of their physicians who prescribe patients compounded versions of tirzepatide, a Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for diabetes and weight loss, for a consent judgment and permanent injunction to end a trademark case, finding that the motion “suffers from numerous defects.”

  • September 24, 2025

    Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction In Latest Copyright Case Over Hulk Hogan Tape

    TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida dissolved a temporary restraining order against a radio personality barring him from publishing portions of a sex tape featuring the late professional wrestler known as Hulk Hogan in a documentary film about the tape; the judge held that the record indicated that the use of the tape in the film is likely a fair use.

  • September 22, 2025

    9th Circuit Denies App Maker’s Rehearing Bid In Peloton Infringement Suit

    SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected an app maker’s request for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, leaving in place a panel’s finding that factors “overwhelmingly” favored a finding that Peloton Interactive Inc.’s “Peloton Bike+” was not likely to be confused with the petitioner’s mobile app called “Bike+.”