The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., vacating a nearly $43 million profits award and remanding the case for further consideration. The Court concluded that the Lanham Act’s provision allowing plaintiffs to “recover [a] defendant’s continue reading...
Last month, Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Vital”), the manufacturer of the Bang energy drink, fell short in its post-trial challenge to a “monster” jury award in favor of Monster Energy Company (“Monster”). After nearly five years of litigation in the Central District of California, Monster’s Lanham continue reading...
How far does the Lanham Act’s reach extend? The Supreme Court gave us one answer in Abitron Austria GmbH et al. v. Hetronic International, Inc. and made it simple: not very far. Hetronic is a U.S. company that manufactures remote controls for construction equipment. Abitron continue reading...
Justices of the Supreme Court will soon put on their whiskey glasses to decide the proper tests for infringement and dilution claims involving humorous use of another’s trademark. The Court granted certiorari in November to consider a dispute between VIP Products, LLC (“VIP”) and Jack continue reading...
In MGFB Properties, Inc. v. Viacom Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently sided with Viacom and its subsidiary MTV in a trademark action brought by the owners of the Flora-Bama Lounge, who alleged infringement by the television series MTV Floribama continue reading...
We reported here last summer the outcome of Coca-Cola Company’s petitions to cancel the registrations for the above-captioned marks owned by Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc. Meenaxi appealed the TTAB’s decision to cancel the registrations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The basis continue reading...
During the 2016 presidential primaries, then presidential candidates Donald Trump and Senator Marco Rubio exchanged insults, with Trump calling Rubio “Little Marco” and Rubio commenting on the size of Trumps hands. Recently, this exchange was the basis for a Federal Circuit decision reversing a refusal continue reading...
Welcome to the final chapter of our Burger War Trilogy. In our earlier installments, Part I and Part II, we discussed the secondary meaning surveys proffered by both parties in this trade dress dispute. We now turn to In-N-Out’s likelihood of confusion study in this continue reading...
Last week we introduced our readers to the imbroglio featuring the burger behemoth In-N-Out, who accused upstart Doll N’ Burgers of infringing In-N-Out’s registered and unregistered trade dress. Typical of these sorts of savory squabbles, both sides retained consumer survey experts, both experts took broadsides continue reading...
A burger brouhaha involving the Lanham Act is well underway in the Wolverine state. Plaintiff In-N-Out Burgers operates hundreds of fast food joints in the West. Defendant Doll n’ Burger recently opened two locations in Michigan. In-N-Out filed suit in Michigan alleging that Doll n’ continue reading...
Jeffrey CadwellJeff advises clients on the availability, registrability, and stre...
Michael KeyesJ. Michael Keyes is an intellectual property attorney with exten...
Kaleb McNeelyAs a partner in the Trial Group, Kaleb practices primarily in the ...
Sarah RobertsonSarah has over fifteen years’ experience helping clients prot...
Fara SunderjiFara assists clients in the development and execution of all type...
Charlene KroghCharlene Krogh is a Partner in Dorsey’s top-ranked Tradem...
Evan EveristEvan is a partner in Dorsey’s Trademark, Copyright and Adverti...
