商標登録insideNews: Booking.com wins key trademark case at the Supreme Court – CNNPolitics

The Supreme Court sided with Booking.com on Tuesday, green-lighting the booking accommodations website to trademark the generic term associated with their domain name.

情報源: Booking.com wins key trademark case at the Supreme Court – CNNPolitics

On 30th June 2020 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in United StatesPpatent and Trademark Office et al. v. Booking.comdealt with the issue of whether the combination of generic terms is also generic for the purpose of trademark registration. SCOTUS by an overwhelming majority (8 judges) held otherwise i.e. such combination is not generic in nature. The sole dissenting opinion was written by J Breyer who held respondent’s Trademark as generic in nature.

情報源: US Supreme Court On ‘generic.com’ Trademark: A Tale Of Missed Opportunities

商標登録insideNews: Justices Toss New Defense Preclusion in Lucky’s Trademark War | bloomberg

The Supreme Court nixed a win for Marcel Fashions in its decades-long dispute with Lucky Brand, tossing a novel “defense preclusion” backed by the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

情報源: Justices Toss New Defense Preclusion in Lucky’s Trademark War (2)

Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group Inc. (SCOTUS-Toons), 1:01:53

商標登録insideNews: Does a .com suffix make a trademark? The US Supreme Court will decide as Booking marks its legal spot | The Register

If you know anything about law it is probably that you can’t trademark a generic name. But this week the US Supreme Court heard a case that introduces a fascinating wrinkle in that long-standing rule, courtesy of the internet.

情報源: Does a .com suffix make a trademark? The US Supreme Court will decide as Booking marks its legal spot • The Register

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments for USPTO v. Booking via Teleconference | LIVE | NowThis, 2:17:39

For the first time in its 230 year history, the Supreme Court is broadcasting its oral arguments, which are happening via teleconference due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

商標登録insideNews: Is Willful Infringement Required For Award of Trademark Infringer’s Profits? – Intellectual Property – United States | mondaq.com

The Supreme Court may soon resolve a circuit split regarding the availability of a trademark infringer’s profits in the absence of willful infringement. United States Intellectual Property Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 9 Jan 2020

情報源: Is Willful Infringement Required For Award Of A Trademark Infringer’s Profits? – Intellectual Property – United States

A company that makes watch fasteners will try to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to revive a $6.7 million jury award against Fossil Inc., arguing that negligence is enough to award profits in trademark infringement cases.

情報源: Battle Over Trademark Profit Awards to Play Out at Supreme Court

Romag’s Trademarks
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (CAFC)

商標登録insideNews: Booking.com Case Gets Supreme Court Review in Trademark Test – Bloomberg

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to use a case involving Booking.com to consider whether businesses can get federal trademark protection for website names that center on a commonly used word.

情報源: Booking.com Case Gets Supreme Court Review in Trademark Test – Bloomberg

Booking.com – Be a Booker, 0:16
https://youtu.be/qUBCz9-reg4

商標登録insideNews: Supreme Court to Rule On Two Trademark Litigation Cases Next Term – Maier & Maier

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, […]

情報源: Supreme Court to Rule On Two Trademark Litigation Cases Next Term – Maier & Maier – Patent Attorneys

Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., No. 17-0361 (2d Cir. 2018)

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.

商標登録insideNews: US Supreme Court rules trademark rights may survive bankruptcy rejection – JURIST 

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.

情報源: Supreme Court rules trademark rights may survive bankruptcy rejection – JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary

シンガポール 最高裁判所 商標_動画(embedded)

1.Supreme Court Singapore (Corporate Video) 2015, 6:51

2.Supreme Court Singapore – Evidence Display System, 1:33

3.Supreme Court Singapore – Assistive Listening Technology, 1:32

4.Supreme Court Singapore – Visualiser System, 1:12

5.Supreme Court Singapore – Video Conference System, 1:44

商標登録insideNews: Supreme Court refuses to hear case questioning Google’s trademark | Ars Technica

The Supreme Court declined Monday to review a petition asserting that the term “google” has become too generic and therefore unqualified for trademark protection.

情報源: Supreme Court refuses to hear case questioning Google’s trademark | Ars Technica

[コメント]米国最高裁判所は、googleが普通名称化したとの争いについて上訴を棄却しています。最高裁が裁量で取り上げる問題ではないと判断したことを意味しております。Websiteのgoogleはgoogle社が提供する検索エンジンとして広く知られていて、google=検索でもありませんので、妥当な決定と言えます。