Trademarks – Page 3 – IP Law Watch

In Starch Contrast: Australian Patent Office Makes key Finding on use of Trade Marks in Patent Specifications

Sep 26 2023

In the field of intellectual property, the interplay between trade marks and patent claims is very rarely discussed, given the distinct scope of protection provided by each. In Australia and New Zealand, patent examiners tend to raise an immediate clarity objection when a trade mark finds its way into a claim. This concern arises from the fact that a trade mark is an identifier of origin, and products bearing them can undergo variations across jurisdictions and time frames. This makes the intended scope of the claim unclear in many situations. Consequently, Australian and New Zealand examiners commonly raise objections based on clarity when trade marks feature in patent claims during the examination process.

UK Trade Mark and Design Reform Consultation

Sep 12 2023

The UKIPO Transformation Programme

The UKIPO launched a transformation programme to modernise their trade mark and design services by the end of 2025. The aim is to replace their existing processes with a fully digitalised system in line with increased volume of work and customer demand.

IP Australia Releases Long-Awaited Trade Mark Classification Guidelines on Emerging Technologies

Aug 22 2023

The metaverse and related technologies like virtual goods, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and blockchain, represent a fundamental shift in how we interact with the internet, as the distinction between our activity online and in real life begins to blur. These emerging technologies present enormous opportunities for businesses, but bring with them a number of difficult legal challenges.

Batman Won Another (Trade Mark) Battle

Aug 02 2023

Batman may be a superhero but it is the General Court who has come to the rescue following an invalidation action bought against DC Comics, a Warner Bros subsidiary, by Commerciale Italiana Srl, a wholesale retailer of costumes. In 2019, the Italian company applied for the invalidation of the well-known Batman logo (EUTM 000038158) for some of the goods in classes 25 and 28 (including clothing, footwear, and costumes), based on lack of distinctive character.

Rules on Suspension of CNIPA Trademark Proceedings

Jul 11 2023

Recently the China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) released Interpretation of Rules on Suspension of CNIPA Trademark Proceedings (“Suspension Rules”). The Suspension Rules provides clear guidance on the circumstances under which a CNIPA trademark proceeding shall be or may be suspended.

Just Because the Court can, Doesn’t Mean it will: The Difficulty in Seeking to Avoid an Injunction Following a Finding of Copyright Infringement in the UK

Jul 07 2023

As reported previously in our blog post here, earlier this year the High Court of England and Wales found in Lidl’s favour regarding allegations of trade mark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement by Tesco. However, Tesco has suffered a further loss following a supplementary hearing focused on what the most appropriate form of relief was for copyright infringement (although it was agreed by the parties that Lidl was entitled to an injunction in light of findings of trade mark infringement and passing off).

Supreme Court Limits Foreign Reach of U.S. Trademark Law

Jul 03 2023

In a fractured decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held on June 28, 2023 that two key provisions of the Lanham Act that prohibit trademark infringement do not extend to conduct that occurs outside the United States. Although all nine justices agreed that the Lanham Act does not apply extraterritorially, the Justices split five-to-four on the proper extraterritoriality framework. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito stated that extending the Lanham Act to conduct that occurs outside the United States is “wrong,” even if the conduct creates a likelihood of confusion in the United States, and that the contrary rule “would give the Lanham Act an untenably broad reach that undermines our extraterritoriality framework.” In contrast, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in an opinion concurring in the judgment that the majority decision “significantly waters down protections for U.S. trademark owners”, and called for “Congress to correct the Court’s limited reading of the Act.” Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., 600 U.S. _ (2023).

U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Dog Toy Company’s Win in Jack Daniel’s Parody Trademark Dispute

Jun 09 2023

By David J. Byer and Eric W. Lee

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held on June 8, 2023, that a dog toy company’s “parody” chew toy that mimics Jack Daniel’s widely recognized whiskey bottle does not escape trademark liability merely because the toy has “expressive content” or because it parodies Jack Daniel’s. Justice Kagan delivered the narrow opinion, writing that because the dog toy company, VIP Products LLC (“VIP”), used Jack Daniel’s trademarks as a designation of source for VIP’s own goods – i.e. using another’s trademark as a trademark – there is no special threshold First Amendment inquiry. The Supreme Court vacated the prior Ninth Circuit opinion that VIP’s use was protected under the First Amendment and the so-called Rogers test for “expressive” works, and remanded for consideration of whether VIP’s use is likely to cause consumer confusion. The Supreme Court expressly did not evaluate whether or how the well-known Rogers test may or may not apply in other contexts. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. ___ (2023).

U.S. Supreme Court to Review “Trump Too Small” Trademark Refusal

Jun 06 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) refusal to register the trademark “Trump too small” violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Honey, I Lost the Trade Mark: MANUKA HONEY Declared not Exclusive to New Zealand

Jun 01 2023

An attempt to trade mark the term MANUKA HONEY in New Zealand has come to a sticky end. Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks Natasha Alley found that the term MANUKA HONEY was descriptive of the goods it claimed and MHAS had “fallen short of establishing the necessary distinctiveness, both inherent and acquired”.¹

Category:Trademarks