40 years ago, I was the new kid in 6th grade – truly a terrible age in a young girl’s life to try and “fit in” at a new elementary school in a small town. But, one of my best memories from that year was continue reading...
Welcome to the final chapter of our Burger War Trilogy. In our earlier installments, Part I and Part II, we discussed the secondary meaning surveys proffered by both parties in this trade dress dispute. We now turn to In-N-Out’s likelihood of confusion study in this continue reading...
Last week we introduced our readers to the imbroglio featuring the burger behemoth In-N-Out, who accused upstart Doll N’ Burgers of infringing In-N-Out’s registered and unregistered trade dress. Typical of these sorts of savory squabbles, both sides retained consumer survey experts, both experts took broadsides continue reading...
A burger brouhaha involving the Lanham Act is well underway in the Wolverine state. Plaintiff In-N-Out Burgers operates hundreds of fast food joints in the West. Defendant Doll n’ Burger recently opened two locations in Michigan. In-N-Out filed suit in Michigan alleging that Doll n’ continue reading...
We previously blogged about Airwair Int’l v. Pull & Bear and how Doc Martens successfully challenged Defendant’s expert who opined on secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Doc Martens’ expert found himself in the hot seat for continue reading...
We’ve discussed a number of cases lately where flimsy consumer surveys were tossed out as unreliable under Daubert. This latest installment presents a slightly different twist. It discusses a recent case where the Defendant’s expert opined on the issue of secondary meaning and consumer confusion continue reading...
Is humor protected speech? Although the answer might seem like an obvious yes, a dog toy maker’s Jack Daniel’s bottle lookalike dog chew toy with poopy puns blurs the line between freedom of expression and the protection of famous marks. In 2014, VIP Products LLC continue reading...
The TMCA has been covering two pending trademark infringement cases brought by JaM Cellars against The Wine Group’s “Flavor First” line extension of its Franzia brand, and since our last post, there have been two developments of note. In the first case, involving JaM’s claim continue reading...
On April 1, 2020, JaM Cellars filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against The Wine Group, makers of the popular Franzia brand boxed wine. Plaintiff JaM Cellars is the owner of trademarks relating to the word JAM used in wine products (U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3,787,229 continue reading...
Jeffrey CadwellJeff advises clients on the availability, registrability, and stre...
Michael KeyesJ. Michael Keyes is an intellectual property attorney with exten...
Kaleb McNeelyAs a partner in the Trial Group, Kaleb practices primarily in the ...
Sarah RobertsonSarah has over fifteen years’ experience helping clients prot...
Fara SunderjiFara assists clients in the development and execution of all type...
Charlene KroghCharlene Krogh is a Partner in Dorsey’s top-ranked Tradem...
Evan EveristEvan is a partner in Dorsey’s Trademark, Copyright and Adverti...
