The federal district court in Charlotte, North Carolina, did not err in finding thatGrayson O Company’s registered mark “F 450” for a line of hair care products was not infringed by Agadir International’s hair care products sold under the mark HAIR SHIELD 450°, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, has held. despite the…

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board did not err in refusing to register the mark EMPORIUM ARCADE BAR and Design, absent a disclaimer of the word “EMPORIUM,” in addition to the disclaimed term “ARCADE BAR,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that EMPORIUM was…

The federal district court in San Diego did not err in ruling on summary judgment that Seal Shield LLC failed to establish that its predecessor had used the mark LIFE PROOF in commerce in connection with electronic device covers before Otter Products’ subsidiary TreeFrog Developments applied to register LIFEPROOF, the U.S. Court of Appeals in…

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board properly affirmed a trademark examining attorney’s refusal to register two proposed marks consisting of prominent wording—”SHIMMERING BALLERINAS & DANCERS CHARACTER COLLECTION” and “SHIMMERING RAINFOREST CHARACTER COLLECTION,” respectively—adjacent to three columns of hundreds of terms that appeared to be story titles or character names, the U.S. Court of Appeals for…

In a trademark infringement suit between two packing companies over rights in the name “PAKSTER,” the federal district court in Waterloo, Iowa, lacked jurisdiction to cancel two federal trademark registrations fraudulently obtained by defendant PI, Inc., because its rival, East Iowa Plastics, Inc., (“EIP”) failed to established that it suffered any damages as a result…