June 10, 2022
Authored and Edited by Jason Y. Zhang, M.D.; Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
InTiger Lily Ventures Ltd. v. Barclays Capital Inc., Nos. 2021-1107, 2021-1228 (Fed. Cir. June. 1, 2022), the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s decision sustaining Barclays’ opposition against Tiger Lily’s application for the LEHMAN BROTHERS mark.
When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in 2008, Barclays acquired the LEHMAN BROTHERS mark, but allowed the related trademark registrations to expire over the years. In 2013, Tiger Lily sought to register the mark for beer and spirit. That same year, Barclays also filed to register the same mark for financial services. Barclays then filed an opposition against Tiger Lily, arguing, among other things, likely confusion with the mark. Tiger Lily filed its own opposition to Barclays’ application, arguing that Barclays lacked a bona fide intent to use the mark. The TTAB sustained Barclays’ opposition and dismissed Tiger Lily’s opposition in its entirety.
The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and dismissed-in-part. The Federal Circuit held that Barclays did not abandon the mark because Lehman Brothers continued to use the mark under its license from Barclays, and Barclays used the mark in connection with its own financial services. The Federal Circuit also held that Tiger Lily’s use of the mark for its alcoholic products are likely to cause confusion with Barclays’ financial offerings, noting that a well-known mark should be afforded a broad scope of protection. Finally, the Federal Circuit held that Barclays had a bona fide intent to commercially use the mark.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), likelihood of confusion, abandonment
Copyright © 2022 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.