Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: Lanham Act

In Defense of Color Trademarks: INTA Submits Amicus Brief in Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent

by

Posted in Trademarks

On November 16, 2011

On Monday, the International Trademark Association (“INTA”) filed an amicus curae brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc.. In that brief, INTA argued that the lower court’s decision should be vacated and remanded on the basis that the court did not properly evaluate Louboutin’s federally registered trademark, failed to accord that mark the legal presumption of validity to which it is entitled under federal law, and did not use the appropriate test for aesthetic functionality.

Clock Ticking for Trademark Registrants Seeking to Block Registration of Their Marks on .XXX Domain

by

Posted in Trademarks

On September 15, 2011

As has been widely reported by the mainstream press and most legal publications, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has approved a new “.XXX” top-level domain expected to be utilized by the adult entertainment industry. Given the connotation of the .XXX domain, companies and individuals around the globe are considering how best to protect their trademarks from the potential harms of registry misuse, including cyber squatters targeting this new domain to register well known trademarks. Although the creation of the .XXX domain will be a boon to those in the adult entertainment industry and domain registrars, it raises serious threats of infringement, brand dilution or tarnishing for trademarks uninvolved in those industries. If they have not already, all trademark owners should be considering the potential impact of the .XXX domain to their marks and determining whether to take the necessary steps to “opt-out” of .XXX domain registration by the October 28, 2011 deadline for doing so.

A Challenge to Color Trademarks in the Field of Fashion: Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent America

by

Posted in Trade Dress / Trademarks

On August 17, 2011

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s August 10, 2011 decision in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc., questions whether a single color may serve as a trademark for fashion. That case arises from an action for trademark infringement brought by luxury shoe designer, Christian Louboutin, against Yves Saint Laurent America (“YSL”). Louboutin is well-known for his collection of high end women’s shoes, which have bright red glossy soles. He also owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,361,597 for “a lacquered red sole on footwear.”

District Court Awards Tory Burch $164 Million in Anti-Counterfeiting Litigation

by

Posted in E-Commerce / Trademarks

On June 13, 2011

Tory Burch LLC (“Tory Burch”), the makers of women’s apparel, designer shoes and fashion accessories, recently obtained a $164 million damages award against forty-one defendants accused of selling counterfeit versions of its products through numerous websites. This decision confers the largest award ever granted to a fashion company in a counterfeiting action.

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Tiffany v. eBay Appeal

by

Posted in Trademarks

On November 29, 2010

Earlier today, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Tiffany v. eBay action, permitting a ruling to stand that places the burden on trademark owners to police infringements taking place on on-line auction sites. The Supreme Court’s denial of cert was without comment. Critical to the underlying decisions of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was that eBay was not itself the seller of the infringing goods, and that it acted promptly to take down auctions when it received notice that the goods were not legitimate. eBay reportedly has made investments of up to $20 million per year to stop fraud and infringements occurring via its site.

Farouk Systems Wins $300 Million Damages Award Against On-Line Chinese Counterfeiting Ring

by

Posted in E-Commerce / Trademarks

On October 25, 2010

On October 14, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted what is reportedly the largest judgment ever awarded in an action involving on-line counterfeiting. In Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Eyou Int’l Trading Co., Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt entered a default judgment and permanent injunction against more than seventy defendants, who were operating an Internet counterfeiting ring out of China. The judgment required that each of the defendants pay Farouk statutory damages of $4 million, resulting in an award of approximately $300 million. In addition to being significant because of the amount of the damages awarded, this decision is noteworthy for the pragmatic approach that the court took to ensure that the relief awarded to the plaintiff would be meaningful.

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Trademark Challenge to Washington Redskins Name

by

Posted in Trademarks

On January 12, 2010

On November 16, 2009, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in the case of Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. The underlying action was brought by Native American activists (“Harjo”) who challenged the Washington Redskins’ right to register its team name and logos on the basis that they are scandalous, disparaging and may bring Native Americans into disrepute or contempt. Marks that do any of those things are not entitled to registration, as provided by Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). The sole issue submitted for the Supreme Court’s review, however, was whether the activists’ claim was barred by laches, as found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Under the Lanham Act, the grounds on which a trademark registration may be cancelled become limited once the registration has existed for five years. For example, after that point, no challenge may be brought on the basis that the mark is merely descriptive. However, the Lanham Act specifies that certain claims may be brought “at any time,” including that a mark is disparaging, that it has been abandoned, or has become generic. 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). The issue submitted for the Supreme Court’s review arose out of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) proceeding in which Harjo sought...

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories