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

February 2011 Issue

Civil Cases

Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc.,
2011 WL 631449 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2011)

Ninth Circuit relies on its 1980 Job’s Daughters decision, despite its later significant narrowing of that holding, to reject a trademark claim asserted in the Betty Boop character under the “aesthetic functionality” doctrine.

Jurin v. Google,
2011 WL 572300 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011)

Eastern District of California reverses course and rejects Google’s argument that its sales of trademark-related keywords does not constitute false designation of origin under the Lanham Act because such claims are limited to producers of competitive goods.

Levi Strauss & Co. v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.
,
2011 WL 383972 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011)

Ninth Circuit rejects standard requiring marks to be “identical or nearly identical” to sustain a dilution claim.

S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc.,
2011 WL 601639 (E.D. La. Feb. 16, 2011)

Eastern District of Louisiana rejects plaintiff’s argument that the use of plaintiff’s trademark as a metatag constitutes initial-interest confusion and trademark infringement as a matter of law.

Salon FAD v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,
2011 WL 70591 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2011)

Southern District of New York denies defendants’ motions to dismiss a class-action false-advertising lawsuit based on false statements that certain beauty products were sold only in professional salons, because plaintiffs satisfied standing requirements of Article III and the Lanham Act, and adequately alleged false-advertising claim.

TTAB Cases

Gen. Council of the Assemblies of God d/b/a Gospel Publ’g House v.
Heritage Music Found.
,
Cancellation No. 92051525 (TTAB Feb. 3, 2011)

TTAB finds that technical deficiencies in timely served expert disclosure, which was promptly supplemented to remedy such deficiencies, did not warrant exclusion of the expert’s testimony under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

UNREGISTRABLE:
Sc®een Gems


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.