Requirements regarding ‘typographical distinctiveness”:

ERIK M. UNDERWOOD, a Colorado citizen; MY24HOURNEWS.COM, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-1402.

LEDO’S INC., Defendant.

No. 20 CV 7350.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. March 7, 2024.

The defendant’s fraud claim fails even to get out of the starting blocks, because the defendant has failed to adequately establish standing to assert the claim.

Plaintiff has been suing various wristwatch companies over the use of the term RED GOLD. Here, Breitling’s dismissal of plaintiff’s suit at summary judgment provides a road map as to how to make descriptive fair use of even an incontestable mark (and even when there were (allegedly) alternative descriptive terms available to defendant).

From the

From Stobbs summary: Recent Court of Appeal decision (Iconix v Dream Pairs, involving the Umbro ‘double diamond’ logo on footwear) which has clarified the need to take account of the potential for post-sale confusion when assessing likelihood of confusion between two marks.¬†This case could present opportunities for brands to revisit confusion-based claims in the

SDNY: For purposes of a MtD, Defendant’s affirmative defenses (e.g. fair use) must be evident from the face of the complaint. Here, while defendant’s own mark prominently appeared alongside plaintiff’s mark on its packaging, whether this was fair use could not be determined at the 12b6 stage.

text of decision in Global Brand v Rae