TOAST for software platform for restaurants v. TOAST and USE TOAST for mobile app that provides customers with food and drink recommendations.
Much has been written about the coming amendments to EU trademark law. We have a short attention span here so long-time friend to the Trademark Blog, Verena von Bomhard of Bomhard IP, boils down the essentials to six things trademark lawyers want to know about the new EU trademark law.
Starbucks sues Coffee Culture for dilution and infringement arising from use of FREDDOCCINO, as well as false advertising relating to various ‘fair trade’ claims.
The Trademark Company is reportedly the second largest filer of trademarks in the U.S. The USPTO appears to have been investigating the firm’s practices relating to that firm’s use of electronic signatures and the level of supervision by attorneys of that firm’s filed applications. The Trademark Company is protesting tactics taken by the PTO.
Followers of the legal treatments of parodies of trademarks may want to skip immediately to footnote 4 of the decision.
You see the top two pictures above? One side of the bag says ‘My Other Bag …” and the other side is a depiction of an LV bag. Get it? Ok, that’s fair use. LV’s causes dismissed.
You see the picture of the ‘LV’ basketball? The SDNY ruled in 2012 that that was actionable. And now this SDNY court says in footnote that it won’t follow Hyundai.
Southern District Court of NY had previously declined to recognize transfer of STOLI marks to a quasi-government entity, FTE, thus holding that FTE had no standing to bring this infringement suit. Second Circuit reverses:
“The declaration of a United States court that the executive branch of the Russian government violated its own law by transferring its own rights to its own quasi-governmental entity (FTE) would be an affront to the government of a foreign sovereign,”
Fun fact: STOLICHNAYA means ‘from the capital.”
Bad news: I have a search bar on the right column and I searched for STOLI. I’ve been blogging about the STOLI dispute since 2003. However, between Scribd and DocStoc, most of the embedded docs are gone. Good news: I’ve begun embedding docs like the decision below on my own server. So maybe when you read this post ten years from now, you’ll be able to access the decision easily.
Jysk v Monosu Dutta Roy: 11th Cir Deems Re-registration of Domain Name to be New Registration Under ACPA, In Conflict with GoPets Decision
Splitting with the Ninth Circuit in the GoPets case, the 11th Circuit has deemed a re-registration of a domain name to be a new registration for purposes of ACPA. The significance is that ACPA has a trademark priority prerequisite (at least that’s how I read it) that might be met if a re-registration is treated as a new registration.