Gatorade used the slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” and SportFuel, Inc. sued, claiming trademark infringement. The district court threw out the case after it decided that Gatorade’s slogan was construed as fair use. SportFuel appealed.
Mondelez is suing a company called Stoney Patch for trademark infringement. It claims that THC gummy products created and sold by Stoney Patch were intentionally designed to copy the Sour Patch brand under a confusingly similar name and packaging. It additionally says that it is especially concerned about confusing children, since the packaging is likely more appearling to children who are used to the Sour Patch branding.
The State of Illinois is home to a big new battle over the rights to use marks related to male grooming. You have definitely heard the words “manscaping” and “manscaped” used before, and now they are basically the subject of a federal court trademark dispute.
Is the domain name “OrderMyOil.com” entitled to common law trademark protection? An appellate court in Massachusetts has answered in the negative.
In 2019, if you want a quick, easy way to send or receive money without paying a fee, you are likely using the app Venmo. It has become so popular that people will often ask to be Venmo’d money. As can be the case, a noun becomes a verb based on heightened usage.
The rock band Guns N’ Roses has been around since 1984 and is a known name in the music industry to just about everyone in the United States. While the band members have spent most of their lives creating and performing music, they are now going to be occupied with litigating a trademark infringement lawsuit in federal court.
MomoMilk LLC, the owner of trademark registrations to the word mark “MILK BAR” and design marks for a stylized versions of “milk,” has filed a federal lawsuit against Milk Bar, LLC in Illinois. The plaintiff claims that the defendant has infringed on its trademarks based on the defendant’s use of a confusingly similar stylized design mark for “jojo’s milkBAR” in connection with a bar and confectionery it opened in Chicago.
In some trademark cases, the plaintiff sues the defendant for trademark infringement based on what is considered to be a reverse-confusion theory. This means that the plaintiff believes that consumers will mistakenly believe that the defendant is the source, affiliate or sponsor of the plaintiff’s product or service.
I thought that one of the better Super Bowl XLIII advertisements was delivered by Expensify, because it simply demonstrated the value of its service in an effective manner. It appears that a competitor is trying to benefit from Expensify’s Super Bowl exposure, which has led to the filing of a lawsuit by Expensify for trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment.
Lululemon Athletica is suing Under Armour under claims of patent and trademark infringement, for allegedly copying a sports bra design. The “$52 Energy Bra – which has four straps that crisscross in the back – does it all,” according to Lululemon. Four of Under Armour’s sports bras, including “Under Armour’s Armour Eclipse Low Impact”, “Armour Shape Low Impact,” “Under Armour On the Move”, and “Under Armour Printed Scrappy Bra” sports bras, ranging from 20 to 40 dollars, are at issue.
Trademark suits can be quite complex for either side and Heitner Legal can help navigate you through that complexity. Heitner Legal has a great deal of experience when it comes to trademark lawsuits, having represented both Defendants who were being sued for trademark infringement, and having represented Plaintiffs who were suing someone else for the same, as well as transactional trademark work.
For Lululemon to succeed on trademark infringement, Lululemon will need to show that there is a likelihood of consumer confusion as a result of Under Armour’s use.
Lululemon claims the similarities “may cause irreparable damage” to its reputation. Lululemon also added that the infringement in dispute was conducted knowingly, willfully, and in bad faith, and with knowledge of Lululemon’s rights, and marketed to the identical group of consumers as Lululemon via the same channels of trade.”
Moving to the other side, Under Armour’s strongest defense may be the fact that there is not a strong likelihood of consumer confusion, as a result of their own use of the design because of the Under Armour Logo being printed on the back. With the well-known Under Armour logo right on the sports bra, how are customers likely to confuse the designs?