The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to two cases that could have significant impacts on trademark litigation. In Lucky Brands Dungarees, Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashions, Inc., the Court will address whether new, un-litigated defenses in response to newly asserted claims are permissible with federal preclusion principles. Meanwhile, in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, […]
US Supreme Court rules trademark rights may survive bankruptcy rejection MAY 20, 2019 02:08:53 PM. The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that if a trademark license would survive a breach outside bankruptcy, it may survive a debtor’s rejection in bankruptcy.The case, Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, came about after Tempnology filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Tempnology was licensing its trademarks to Mission Product Holdings for use on athletic apparel. After Tempnology filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Tempnology issued a rejection of the current trademark license agreement, which would ordinarily result in a breach. Tempnology argued that they could no longer maintain quality control over the trademark and as such could not support the continuation of the agreement. Mission Product Holdings filed suit in bankruptcy court to determine whether the breach by Tempnology could in effect revoke their existing trademark rights. Tempnology won the initial case, but it was reversed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The Appellate panel was then reversed by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The Supreme Court declined Monday to review a petition asserting that the term “google” has become too generic and therefore unqualified for trademark protection.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to revive a trademark suit against a company that sells tote bags featuring cartoon images of Louis Vuitton’s iconic luxury goods. Turning away an appeal by LVMH’s Louis Vuitton unit, the justices left intact a federal appeals court ruling that said My Other Bag Inc. was selling permissible parodies. The challenged totes say “My Other Bag …” on one side with an image of a far more expensive Louis Vuitton bag on the other
化粧品のコンパクトにもなってきています。動画の43秒あたりにMY OTHER BAGの説明があり、有名バックの手書きのイラストを使用しているとのことです。
Is the term “google” too generic and therefore unworthy of its trademark protection? That’s the question before the US Supreme Court. Words like teleprompter, thermos, hoover, aspirin, and videotape were once trademarked. They lost the status after their names became too generic and fell victim to what is known as “genericide.”
「ルイ・ヴィトン（LOUIS VUITTON）」はロサンゼルスにあるバッグ販売会社「マイ・アザー・バッグ（MY OTHER BAG）」が同ブランドのモノグラムトートをキャンバスバッグにプリントした行為が商標侵害だと主張する一連の訴訟について、2016年12月に下された二審の判決を不服としてアメリカ合衆国最高裁判所に上告した。
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that My Other Bag Inc.’s mimicking of the fashion house’s famous interlocking logo is a parody not subject to a trademark dilution charge ( Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc. , U.S., No. 17-72, review requested 7/13/17 ).
Here’s an example of an alleged “trademark bully,” one of the world’s most famous fashion brands.
コメント:知財系の訴訟は、CAFCが法の番人のように機能する面がありますが、憲法問題である表現の自由（1st Amendment）の争点を盛り込むことで、さらなるフルバックの最高裁（US Supreme Court)での判断も可能となりますので、最後まで戦うとの戦略の場合は、商標や不正競争の訴因に加えて表現の自由が侵害されているとの立場をとることもあります。
The federal government has violated the First Amendment by refusing to register trademarks that officials consider disparaging, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday in a decision that provides a boost to the Washington Redskins’ efforts to hang on to the team’s controversial name.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal trademark law banning offensive names is unconstitutional, siding with a rock band whose name had been deemed racially disparaging by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.