Second Circuit: Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc.

Where an alleged trademark infringer incorporates with distortion the characteristics of the original product that indicate its origin and source, the enhanced First Amendment protections for parodies are properly not considered in the preliminary injunction analysis under the statute.

Given the strength of the original marks, the intention to evoke the original marks by using the distorted design established a likelihood of confusion, especially since the original brand occasionally sold special forms of the shoe. Although it might be difficult to actually wear the shoe, enjoining court's determination to the contrary worthy of deference. No clear error in determination that the alleged infringement was of lower quality, but the court erred in holding that legally this worked in the favor of the party claiming infringement.

No abuse of discretion in ordering escrow of gross revenues, as party seeking injunction sought an accounting, and a damages award would include costs and fees. No error in not requiring bond from party seeking injunction, as non-movant didn't request it.

Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc.

Seventh Circuit: Next Technologies, Inc. v. Beyond the Office Door LLC

 

Court might have exercised a bit more Constitutional avoidance.  Few Lanham Act disparagement claims would succeed if the manufacturers were considered limited purpose public figures.

Although the state's law doesn't distinguish personal libel from trade libel, since there are few examples of the latter in the caselaw, it is reasonable to follow the Restatement rule requiring injurious falsehood -- false statements of specific unfavorable facts --  for trade libel, a standard which requires reckless disregard of the truth.

Next Technologies, Inc. v.  Beyond the Office Door LLC

Tenth Circuit: Craft Smith v. EC Design

 

A registered holder of a compilation copyright holds copyright in the totality of the work, not merely as described in the registration.

The protectable expressionof a day-planner notebook consists of the arrangement of the graphic and literary elements that might themselves be protectable works of authorship.

The order, dimensions, and division of the elements, however, is an unprotectable idea -- the protectable expression is limited to the material protected under authorship and its actual layout on the page.

Evidence of actual copying and significant sales does not as a matter of law present a genuine issue of material fact on a Lanham Act claim of product design trade dress -- the question of secondary meaning requires an interpretationof the meaning of sales and the form of the dress.

Craft Smith v. EC Design

DC Circuit: Imapizza, LLC v. At Pizza Limited

Conditional request for leave to amend in memorandum in opposition didn't satisfy local rules for motion for leave to amend.

Downloading images from plaintiff's US website is not sufficient for domestic copyright infringement, as fixation happens when the image is reproduced for the foreign viewer.

Taking photographs of US restaurants in support of a scheme of actual copying abroad doesn't infringe, as the act of taking photos of these buildings didn't infringe.

Generally, the predicate act test requires an act of domestic infringement.

Tourist confusion as harm would impermissibly broaden the effects-based extraterritorial scope of the Lanham Act.

Visit for the purpose of infringement was not Trespass.

No abuse of discretion in denial of surreply, as party had two opportunities to weigh in on the issue.

Imapizza, LLC v. At Pizza Limited

Ninth Circuit: Pinkette Clothing v. Cosmetic Warriors

Although laches is not available against a copyright or patent claim within the term of the statute, the Lanham Act provides a five year period to equitably challenge a mark, after which a challenge is still available on other grounds. Laches, as an equitable defense, is therefore available as a defense within the initial five year term.

No error in finding that the claim was equitably barred, given showing that most analogous state statutes of limitations had expired.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/29/17-55325.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Eli Lilly v. Arla Foods, Inc.

Preliminary injunction under the Lanham Act appropriately issued where a single supplier ends use of the product; causation can be inferred from the demonization of the product, and no hard evidence of consumer confusion is necessary at the stage of preliminary injunction.

Injunction was not overbroad in barring a wide variety of cartoon ogres and substantially similar messages.

Concurring in part, concurring in j:  District court findings on actual confusion weren't raised in the interlocutory appeal.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-15/C:17-2252:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2171872:S:0