-
August 14, 2026
LAS VEGAS — A federal judge in Nevada determined that defendant travel agency defendants should see a jury’s $250,000 actual damages award against them doubled to $500,000 for willfully infringing a trademark on the phrase “Dirty Vibes” belonging to an adult entertainment company; the judge also determined that the defendants owe another half a million in disgorgement.
-
August 14, 2026
ORLANDO, Fla. — A Florida federal judge agreed to stay the enforcement of more than $1.3 million in Rule 11 sanctions while attorneys that represented a plaintiff school entity and the school itself appeal the order; sanctions were entered after the plaintiff school continued to pursue nationwide trademark damages for several months in 2023 after discovery failed to produce supporting evidence and engaged in what the judge previously called “five-and-a-half years of abusive litigation” in a dispute over virtual schooling trademarks while some of the attorneys appeal the sanctions.
-
August 14, 2026
SAN ANTONIO — A Texas federal judge found that a patent infringement claim brought by archery product makers against competitors should have been filed in an Iowa federal court; the judge elected to transfer trademark infringement and other claims to the Iowa court as well instead of requiring the claims to be litigated separately in two courts.
-
August 13, 2026
DALLAS — In a docket order, a Texas federal judge dismissed with prejudice a trademark infringement dispute between two geotechnical engineering companies due to a stipulation between the parties, which filed the stipulation the same day the judge dismissed the defendant entity’s counterclaim seeking the cancellation of the plaintiff’s marks because it failed to show that the marks were abandoned or generic.
-
August 11, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — In the latest chapter in a long-running saga between Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. (JDPI) and a dog toy manufacturer that has already borne an important U.S. Supreme Court decision, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel vacated an Arizona judge’s permanent injunction in favor of the liquor maker, finding that while it had proved that its name and registered marks were famous and similar to dog toy marks parodying its own, it had failed to produce nonspeculative evidence that the “obvious parody” was likely to harm JDPI’s reputation.
-
August 07, 2026
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed findings from a federal court in Florida that a defendant-appellant infringed a battery company’s trademark on the phrase “Battery Tender” in advertising and customer communications, but in a matter of first impression for the circuit, the panel held that invisible keyword bidding without evidence of customer confusion is not enough to prove infringement.
-
August 03, 2026
ST. LOUIS — An Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed an Iowa federal judge’s decision to cancel a plaintiff-appellant manufacturer’s trademark covering a brightly colored garden hose because the color was purely functional; the panel also affirmed the judge’s award of more than $3.21 million in attorney fees to the defendant-appellee entity because the plaintiff-appellant’s conduct both before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and the District Court made the case exceptional.
-
July 30, 2026
PHILADELPHIA — A partially split Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 29 affirmed both attorney fees against plaintiff entities over their unsuccessful copyright and trademark claims in a dispute over fudge and affirmed their jury victory on trade secret claims, holding that there was enough evidence in the record for a jury to find that a fudge recipe derived economic value from remaining secret.
-
July 30, 2026
BALTIMORE — The owner of a cigar company filed a complaint in Maryland federal court against Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM) in which he seeks $8 billion in compensatory damages and declaratory relief protecting his intellectual property rights to file a “good faith” application to trademark and commercialize his MARLBORO MAN trademark, purportedly in tribute to his father.
-
July 29, 2026
TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that urged the court to partially grant a motion for final default judgment in a case launched by organizations affiliated with President Donald Trump that alleged that a host of online sellers infringed trademarks on the phrase “Make America Great Again” and Trump’s name, awarding a total of $14.6 million in damages.
-
July 17, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A split Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed an Arizona federal judge’s decision to dismiss a pro se plaintiff-appellant’s challenge to a transfer of his domain “airbnbseo.com” to Airbnb Inc., with the majority agreeing that the man’s domain was confusingly similar to Airbnb’s trademark, while a dissenting judge opined that the confusing similarity analysis should not have been resolved on a motion to dismiss.
-
July 17, 2026
ORLANDO, Fla. — After what a Florida federal judge called “five-and-a-half years of abusive litigation” in a trademark row over virtual schooling trademarks, the judge awarded more than $1.3 million in Rule 11 sanctions to the defendant school entity after the plaintiff school entity continued to pursue nationwide trademark damages for several months in 2023 after discovery failed to produce supporting evidence.
-
July 17, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California granted an artificial intelligence study materials company summary judgment on direct and vicarious copyright, trade dress and trademark and other claims, finding that it was merely a passive entity with respect to its users’ uploading of copyrighted materials.
-
July 15, 2026
DENVER — A 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel in a July 14 opinion partly reversed a Kansas federal judge’s dismissal of a putative class action Lanham Act false advertising dispute between two pet food manufacturers, holding that the plaintiff-appellant had plausibly alleged at the pleading stage that the defendant-appellee had made some statements that were commercial speech that was false.
-
July 14, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. — In a pair of opinions, a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel upheld a North Carolina federal judge’s preliminary injunction against a Dutch software company accused of stealing a North Carolina software company’s branding, code and trade secrets because the Dutch entity targeted United States commercial conduct but vacated a civil contempt sanction against the Dutch company’s attorney because the plaintiff company failed to show that it was harmed by noncompliance with a court order.
-
July 09, 2026
CINCINNATI — A Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Michigan federal judge’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a furniture company, agreeing with the judge’s determination that a royalty agreement allowed the company to use and own trademarked designs and names related to creations from influential modernist designer George Nelson.
-
July 07, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a decision from the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that upheld an examiner’s refusal to register marks on the phrase “Mon Ami” for pet treats; the panel found that substantial evidence supported the finding that the proposed mark was too similar to a previously registered mark that also related to pet food.
-
July 02, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The family of legendary baseball player Roberto Clemente is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider a partly divided First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel opinion that largely affirmed a Puerto Rico federal judge’s decision to dismiss a suit against Puerto Rican government entities by Clemente’s sons, who ask the court to determine whether Puerto Rican government entities enjoy “any form of immunity from suit in federal court” and whether the Lanham Act abrogates that immunity.
-
June 29, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 29 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a coffee company’s petition for a writ of certiorari in a trademark infringement dispute with PepsiCo Inc., agreeing to hear the company’s argument that the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals alone considers a trademark’s strength a question of law and not a question of fact. The grant follows an amicus curiae brief from the U.S. government telling the court that certiorari should be denied, even though it believes the Second Circuit’s opinion was erroneous.
-
June 26, 2026
ST. LOUIS — In a June 25 opinion, an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Minnesota federal judge’s dismissal of a hotel management company’s claims that a hotel chain company breached a trademark licensing agreement by allowing a competing management company to use certain marks in an exclusive geographic area; the panel agreed with the judge’s conclusion that the competing hotel management company did not use marks covered by the agreement.
-
June 26, 2026
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel reversed a Florida federal judge’s grant of summary judgment in defendant-appellee entities’ favor in what the panel called “a spirited battle of trademarks tied to the sport of competitive international cheerleading” because the panel determined that the body of evidence presented by the appellant entity raised questions of fact that could not be resolved at summary judgment regarding genericness and secondary meaning.
-
June 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 22 denied a sports-based nonprofit organization’s petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving in place a December Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion that affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB’s) decision to cancel trademarks containing the phrase “more than an athlete.”
-
June 12, 2026
CINCINNATI — An Ohio federal judge did not err when denying The Scotts Co. LLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction against The Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G) on trade dress infringement and dilution claims, a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held; the panel found that the judge’s conclusion that the two companies’ gardening product packaging was “‘highly dissimilar’” provided a sufficient basis to hold that Scotts was unlikely to succeed on the merits.
-
June 11, 2026
ST. LOUIS — A divided Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a South Dakota federal judge’s dismissal of a trademark infringement suit brought by the founder of a tobacco company and a cigar maker against the founder’s former company; the majority agreed with the judge that the dispute necessarily arose out of a stock purchase agreement that included a mandatory forum selection clause that required litigation in South Dakota state court.
-
June 11, 2026
CHICAGO — A Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 10 agreed with an Illinois federal judge’s finding that a maker of patriotic clothes began using the phrase “This We’ll Defend” as a source-identifying trademark years before a different clothing company began using the same phrase as a mark, affirming the judge’s finding that a trademark registration was defeated by the timing.