Trademark

Subscribe to Trademark

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).

On August 27, 2021, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an international trademark dispute where U.S. jurisdiction hinged on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).  Reversing the trial court, the Ninth Circuit ruled that personal jurisdiction existed over an Australian skin care product company, based in part on that company’s actions on social media.  (Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., No. 20-16214,  — F.4th —- (Aug. 27, 2021) (2021 WL 3823624).)

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))

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?

On March 15, 2019, a federal trial court judge ruled in favor of famous golfer Jack Nicklaus’ company in a case that may be of interest to copyright and trademark owners. (Nicklaus Cos. LLC. v. Bryan Hepler Golf LLC, No. CV-18-01748-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz. March 15, 2019) (2019 WL 1227198).)

The case began in a way that is probably all too familiar with copyright owners: photos and videos owned by the plaintiff began appearing without permission the defendant’s website and were posted by the defendant on social media sites. The plaintiff sent a demand letter to the defendant, but the conduct did not stop.

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.