Doubling (& Tripling) Down on Trademark Protection For Secret Menu Items–In-N-Out v. Smashburger (Guest Blog Post)
by guest blogger Alexandra Jane Roberts Last week, California-based burger chain In-N-Out sued Denver-based Smashburger, alleging infringement and dilution of trademarks including DOUBLE-DOUBLE and TRIPLE TRIPLE (for, among other things, “hamburger sandwiches and cheeseburger sandwiches”). Smashburger recently applied to register…
White-on-White Trademark Usage Might Constitute Initial Interest Confusion–Agdia v. Xia
Are we really litigating trademark references in white-on-white text in 2017??? Yes, we are, and yes, the whole case is a throwback to the mid-2000s (e.g., the 2008 Venture Tape case)–with effects that would be comical if they weren’t so…
Trademark Injunction Issued Against Print-on-Demand Website–Harley Davidson v. SunFrog
The print-on-demand business is a legally risky one. As I recently blogged, in June a court ruled that Zazzle did not qualify for the DMCA 512 safe harbor. This ruling is even more troubling. Are the days of print-on-demand services…
1H 2017 Quick Links, Part 1 (Trademarks, Keyword Ads)
Trademark * Viacom Int’l Inc v. IJR Capital Investments LLC, 2017 WL 107141 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2017): “Because “The Krusty Krab” is a recurring element of the “SpongeBob SquarePants” show, the court finds that the mark is eligible for…
Trademark Registrations for Emojis
[This is another excerpt from my Emojis and the Law paper.] The Trademark Office has registered emoji trademarks. On January 20, 2017, I conducted a search in the TESS database for “emoji” and identified 385 records. At that time, most…
Google Gets Big Ninth Circuit Win That Its Eponymous Trademark Isn’t Generic–Elliott v. Google
The Ninth Circuit ruled that “Google” isn’t a generic trademark. This isn’t a surprise because a district court already reached this conclusion in 2014. See my prior blog post, “Google Successfully Defends Its Most Valuable Asset In Court.” Still, the…
1-800 Contacts Charges Higher Prices Than Its Online Competitors, But They Are OK With That–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
As you recall, the FTC has taken the position that 1-800 Contacts’ agreement with competitors, via settlement agreements, not to bid on each other trademarks as keywords violates antitrust laws. Prior blog posts: * FTC Sues 1-800 Contacts For Restricting…
New Draft Paper on Emojis and the Law
I have posted a draft article, entitled Surveying the Law of Emojis, to SSRN. I will be posting excerpts from the article here over the next few weeks. I would gratefully appreciate your comments on the draft. I am also…
Catching Up On Some Recent Click Fraud Rulings
After all of the excitement over click fraud a decade ago, we don’t often see click fraud cases any more. However, just in the past couple months I’ve seen 3 rulings that I wanted to share with you. Wickfire, LLC…
FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
As you may recall, the FTC is pursuing 1-800 Contacts for antitrust violations based on 1-800 Contacts having sued and then settled with competitors who bought keyword ads on 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks. Recently, the FTC filed its “Complaint Counsel’s Corrected…