On May 19, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of defendants in a trademark matter involving unauthorized use of models’ photographs. Souza v Exotic Island Enterprises, Inc., Dkt. No. 21-2149-cv (2d Cir. May
Frogbikes Limited (“Frogbikes”), a British bicycle manufacturer, has filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia claiming that defendant Frog Scooters, Inc. (“Frog Scooters”) has infringed Frogbikes’ “FROG” trademarks (the “FROG Marks”) with the use of the term “frog” and its stylized “Frog” mark in connection with its scooter rental business. The dispute arises from Frog Scooters’ geographic expansion from Europe to the U.S., where Frogbikes alleges it was already conducting business under the FROG Marks.
On November 11, 2021, fitness-tech company iFIT, Inc. (“iFIT”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the district of Utah, claiming that lingerie and beauty retailer Victoria’s Secret infringed upon its registered SWEAT trademarks by prominently using “SWEAT” in its social media promotions for its fitness apparel and services.
On November 2, 2021, a federal trial court in New York issued an opinion that combined breakfast restaurants, social media, trademarks, and COVID. The judge ultimately ruled against the registered trademark owner’s request for a default judgment, in part based upon the defendant’s lack of social media advertising. BYC, Inc. v. Broken Yolk, civ. no. 21-CV-6203-FPG (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2021) (2021 WL 5074720).
If you entered into a trademark settlement agreement where one party agreed not to use your registered trademark and then that party proceeded to use a very similar term on social media, is that a “violation” or a “material violation” of the agreement? The answer is important because it determines whether you can get summary judgment on your breach of contract claim, according to a federal trial court in Florida. (PayCargo, LLC v. CargoSprint LLC, Case No. 1:19-CV-22995-LOUIS (S.D. Fla. June 17, 2021 (2021 WL 2481867))
Be careful whom you entrust with administrator access to your brand’s social media accounts. If an administrator does use your brand’s social media accounts beyond their permitted use, you should formally revoke their authority to access the accounts to allow potential legal action based on their unauthorized use after the revocation.
On March 4, 2021, a federal trial court in New York issued a preliminary injunction that halted a bridal gown designer and social media influencer from using her social media accounts without her former employer’s permission. JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman, No. 20 CV 10575-LTS-SLC (S.D.N.Y. March 4, 2021) (2021 WL 827749).
We have previously written about trademark cases where one party was ordered to turn over social media accounts, websites, links, etc. that included the disputed mark(s). But what happens if the defendant doesn’t turn them over but instead destroys them?
In August of 2018, the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which decides cases certain trademark cases, refused rapper will.i.am’s attempt to register a hashtag as a trademark. Specifically, i.am.symbolic,llc (will.i.am’s company), attempted to register #WILLPOWER for a variety of apparel goods. The Trademark Examining Attorney refused his application because WILLPOWER WEAR was already registered for “Hats; Jackets; Pants; Shirts; Shoes,” and i.am.symbolic appealed the decision to the TTAB.
We previously reported on Grumpy Cat Limited’s big win in a copyright and trademark suit. As a recap, Grumpy Cat—the social-media-famous grimacing feline, or rather the holding company owned by her “parents”—filed a lawsuit after the defendants went beyond the scope of a licensing agreement to market a variety of Grumpy Cat-themed coffee products. According to the suit, the contract was only intended to cover bottled iced-coffee beverages called Grumpuccinos.
Though judgment was entered, the tale is not over yet. Grumpy Cat Limited recently asked the court to award it over $320,000 in costs and attorneys’ fees from the defendants, Nick and Paul Sandford of Grenade Beverages (later renamed Grumpy Beverages LLC).