Category Archives: Advertising Law

SDNY Asked To Explore Functionality of Sex Toys In Trade Dress Case

Plaintiff has sold the b-Vibe Rimming Plug device since the summer of 2017. It alleges that its plug, the remote control, the charger and the case are all “uniquely designed” and it claims trade dress therein (See exhibit A below). Defendant has offered for sale the XR Rimmer since January 8. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s products infringes its trade dress in the plug, charger, remote and case (See exhibit B). Plaintiff has field for design patent protection as well. Two points. Plaintiff refers to a beaded pattern in para. 29, which pattern seems to be copied by defendant, but not displayed in Exhibit 1. Second – para. 38 reads “Alternative constructions perform the same adult toy product function as COTR’s trade dress. How would you edit that sentence? Wikipedia on sex toys... To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fourth Circuit Finally Rules on Washington Redskins Trademark Case

In what may be the final installment of a series of blog posts related to the Lanham Act’s disparaging trademark ban and its effect on the Washington Redskins’ trademarks, the Fourth Circuit finally issued a decision in the Redskins’ case.  When the United States Supreme Court ruled last June in a case involving the Slants rock band that section 2(a) of the Lanham Act was unconstitutional, the fate of the Washington Redskins’ trademarks became clear.  But it took until yesterday for the Fourth Circuit to officially weigh in. 68951198 – washington redskins nfl team on whiteIn yesterday’s simple one-page decision, the Fourth Circuit vacated the lower court’s ruling (which affirmed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s earlier order) that six of the team’s trademarks violated section 2(a) of the Lanham Act.  In other words, as expected, the Fourth Circuit issued an order in line with the….. To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Does Your Company Website Comply With Title III of the ADA?

Is your website covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act? The short answer is: possibly. This area of the law continues to evolve, with differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction based on the type of website. But make no mistake: lawsuits alleging lack of website accessibility are hot. The most common allegation is that the company website is inaccessible to visually-impaired customers, although some cases now involve mobile apps. Such customers often rely on screen-reader software like JAWS or NVDA to interact with and access a site’s content. If the website is not compatible with this or similar screen-reader technology, most visually-impaired customers will not be able to use the website. Companies seeking to navigate these issues should start by addressing two basic questions: (1) Does your website engage in commercial activity for the benefit of the general public; and if so (2) Will the law treat your website as a public accommodation, or the service of a….. To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Army v. NHL – Another Challenge for Vegas Golden Knights

Another update on my series of posts following the trademark troubles of the NHL’s newest expansion team, the Las Vegas Golden Knights. Most recently, I posted about the USPTO’s decision to maintain a refusal to register the team’s marks in connection with clothing, LAS VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS and VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS (Applicant Nos. 87147236, 87147265), based on likelihood of confusion with another registered mark, GOLDEN KNIGHTS THE COLLEGE OF SAINT ROSE & Design.  Those two applications are now suspended. Now the team is facing another challenge, this time from the U.S. Army. Last week, the Army filed two Notices of Opposition (see here and here) against the team, opposing registration of both of the team’s marks in connection with its entertainment services, namely, professional ice hockey exhibitions (Application Nos. 87147269, 87147239).  (Technically, the applicant and defendant is the team’s business entity Black….. To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Guest post: Ornamental? Or trademark as a product?

Trademark-as-a-Product v. Ornamental Sparked by a question from Pamela Chestek about promotional goods, I got to thinking about when a design or word on a […].. To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment