Incontestable
Finnegan's monthly review of essential decisions, key developments, evolving trends in trademark law, and more.

October 2010 Issue

Civil Cases

Campbell Sales Group, Inc. v. Gramercy Park Design, LLC,
Case No. 1:10cv55 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 2010)

Plaintiff’s failure to provide contextual information on industry practices in proffering its sales and advertising figures dooms preliminary injunction in furniture trade dress case.

Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int’l N.V.,
2010 WL 3928910 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2010)

Second Circuit resurrects dispute over the well-known STOLICHNAYA marks for vodka by holding that a Russian government-owned entity may challenge the validity of the assignment of the incontestable STOLICHNAYA marks.

In re Chippendales USA, Inc.,
2010 WL 3894246 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2010)

Federal Circuit affirms TTAB decision finding that Chippendales’ “Cuffs & Collar” trade dress is not inherently distinctive for adult-entertainment services because it was merely a refinement of the earlier-used Playboy bunny costume.

Stayart v. Yahoo! Inc.,
2010 WL 3785147 (7th Cir. Sept. 30, 2010)

Seventh Circuit affirms district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s false-endorsement complaint under the Lanham Act against search-engine defendants based on the appearance of plaintiff’s name in search results linked to adult content, finding that she did not have standing because she did not have a commercial interest in her name.


 

 



DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is intended to convey general information only and should not be construed as a legal opinion or as legal advice. The firm disclaims liability for any errors or omissions and readers should not take any action that relies upon the information contained in this newsletter. You should consult your own lawyer concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions. This promotional newsletter does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with our firm or with any of our attorneys.