Posts Tagged: "trademark"

Trademark claims against Netflix concerning its popular “Running Point” comedy series were recently dismissed at the pleadings stage due to a one-letter misarticulation of applicable First Amendment law. The case, soon to be litigated on appeal, highlights the need to clarify the contours of trademark liability arising from creative works. Pepperdine University filed the lawsuit last year against Netflix and co-defendants Warner Bros. and Kaling International, just one week before the “Running Point” series premiere.  Loosely based on the life of Los Angeles Lakers owner Jeanie Buss, the series stars Kate Hudson as the owner of the fictional basketball team the Los Angeles Waves. The popular series, which amassed instant popularity and ranked as Netflix’s #1 TV show, was quickly ordered for a second season that premiered April 23, 2026.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) established World IP Day to commemorate April 26, 1970, the date the WIPO Convention officially took effect. Each year, the occasion serves as a global reminder of the role that intellectual property plays in encouraging innovation and creativity. This year, the World IP Day theme is “IP and Sports Ready, Set, Innovate,” recognizing the increasingly complex relationship between intellectual property rights and the multibillion-dollar global sports industry.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday in Fuente Marketing Ltd. v. Vaporous Technologies, LLC, affirming the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and holding that the Board correctly dismissed an opposition to a trademark application after finding no likelihood of confusion between the applied-for mark and registered marks.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Tuesday denied a motion for summary judgment in Cinemavault, Inc. v. Gameshow Network, LLC, allowing a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit to proceed to trial. Judge Joel H. Slomsky rejected Gameshow Network, LLC’s arguments that Cinemavault, Inc. failed to continuously use its trademark, that Cinemavault, Inc. was judicially estopped from bringing a likelihood of confusion claim, and that the relevant Lapp factors precluded Cinemavault from establishing a likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied certiorari in Zioness Movement, Inc. v. The Lawfare Project, Inc., a case in which Zioness Movement sought review of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision that upheld a jury verdict allowing two competing nonprofit entities to co-own the “Zioness” trademark.

For founders, naming a brand after oneself can feel like the most natural—and powerful—choice. A personal name signifies authenticity, craftsmanship, and accountability. Consumers feel they are not just buying a product, but a person’s vision, values, and reputation. In the apparel, beauty, and skincare space in particular, a founder’s identity often is the brand. That alignment can drive early momentum and deep consumer loyalty. But the same naming strategy that builds value at launch can create significant legal and business complications at scale—especially at exit.

In December 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that service of two China-based defendants by email violated the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638, also known as the “Hague Convention,” and therefore was not permitted under Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Smart Study Co. v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi, U.S. App. LEXIS 33039, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).   While the Second Circuit looked at whether the Hague Convention explicitly identifies email as a permitted method of service, the proper question is whether the Hague Convention prohibits service by email.

In a precedential ruling authored by Judge Stoll, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) said on Thursday that International Trade Commission (ITC) decisions that contain mixed findings of violations and no violations have distinct appeal windows as to the notices of appeal for the different findings.

Each year IPWatchdog surveys the IP community to get their thoughts on what the biggest moments in IP were that year. Some years, the comments vary greatly depending on respondents’ practice or perspective. Other years, there are clear winners for what mattered most that year, and 2025 fits this bill. With a few outliers for big trademark moments, the comments below almost exclusively highlight U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires’ and Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart’s aggressive approach to reining in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings and the various court decisions on artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright that have come down.

This year started with a district court decision defining the parameters of parody and trademark infringement and ended with a case that could have taken the overlap of parody and political free speech to a new level, had it not settled. That can of soup has not yet been opened. While brand owners expect that their trademarks and trade dress are federally protected properties under the Lanham Act, political figures, satirists and manufacturers of parody products expect their activities to be protected under the First Amendment and other carved out, fair use exclusions. Sometimes, these respective worlds collide. In 2025, this became abundantly clear.

With another holiday season upon us, IPWatchdog is taking a stroll down the toy and gaming aisle to pick out this season’s gifts representing some of the more successful and unique IP stories. From major licensing deals spawning award-winning animatronic dolls to infringement lawsuits ensuring that U.S. consumers enjoy authentic versions of lovable anime characters, Santa will be slipping these gifts down the chimney this year thanks in no small part to the effective use of IP rights.

What do affiliated corporate entities, non-fungible token (NFTs) and cinnamon-flavored whiskey have in common? They each were the subject of significant trademark rulings in 2025. Below, we review three cases with big implications for trademark law and what’s on the horizon for 2026.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday dismissed an appeal from Zuru Inc. in its ongoing copyright and trademark dispute with the Lego group, finding that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction. Lego A/S, Lego Systems, Inc., and Lego Juris A/S first brought claims against Zuru Inc. in 2019, alleging that Zuru’s “First-Generation” toy figurines infringed on the copyright and trademark rights of Lego’s Minifigure. The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Lego’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which enjoined Zuru from manufacturing or selling the infringing First-Generation figurines and “any figurine or image that is substantially similar to the Minifigure Copyrights or likely to be confused with the Minifigure Trademarks.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued a precedential decision affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB’s) cancellation of the registration for the mark I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE. GP GAME PLAN. The CAFC also dismissed Game Plan, Inc.’s opposition to Uninterrupted IP, LLC’s (UNIP’s) six intent-to-use applications for marks containing I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE and MORE THAN AN ATHLETE. The opinion was authored by Judge Reyna.