Oneida Group, Inc. v. Steelite International U.S.A. Inc. is a demonstration of how our jurisprudence is essentially useless in deciding trademark ownership claims. The dispute is over ownership of the trade dress in the highly successful “Botticelli” and “Nexus” tableware patterns, part of Oneida’s “Sant’ Andrea” line: The tableware is considered premier and sold...
Read more →By now you should have read John Welch‘s excellent report on the Federal Circuit opinion in Lyons v. The American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation; you can also find more background from me on the Board decision here. Despite my fondness for ownership cases, I wish this wasn’t one, or at least...
Read more →In 2006 I published an article in the Trademark Reporter proposing a theory for deciding, as between disputing parties, who owns a trademark. In the article I noted that courts struggled with a systematic approach to resolving an ownership dispute and, based largely on the existing case law that was commonly applied to manufacturer-distributor...
Read more →Trademark ownership isn’t susceptible to an easy rubric. In The American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation v. Lyons, it might have appeared to the registrant, Lyons, that the facts were in her favor based on traditional elements considered when deciding ownership. But, looking at the big picture, the TTAB found otherwise. In...
Read more →Small businesses or community organizations, like restaurants or well-meaning citizens running a charitable fund-raising event, often don’t have many formalities around their operation, so when there is a dispute over the ownership of the name it’s bound to be very messy. But I don’t think there is any more vexing trademark ownership situation than...
Read more →I’m very interested in C.F.M. Distributing Co. v. Costantine, a case about a failed franchise and a son’s effort to revive it. The effort failed because there were so many former uncontrolled licensees that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held (as affirmed by the Federal Circuit) that the applicant was not the owner...
Read more →I was all stoked because one of the most complicated trademark ownership cases I’ve ever seen, C.F.M. Distributing Co. v. Costantine, was appealed to the Federal Circuit. Super! Clarification from a Court of Appeals on trademark ownership! Sigh. Affirmed under Rule 36 without an opinion. Oral argument here. The text of this work is...
Read more →I often write about cases where there are two claimants to the same trademark. We’re still struggling with the fundamental doctrine that should apply in the situation, and because we’re struggling it means that the litigants may not capture or offer evidence that the fact finder needs in order to decide. Which is what...
Read more →I’ve read a lot of cases with convoluted fact patterns, which I guess is how they end up in litigation. But C.F.M. Dist. Co. v. Costantine, an opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, is in the stratosphere of convoluted. Not surprisingly, it’s about a family business. In a 44-page decision, 4 pages...
Read more →Haggar International Corp. v. United Company for Food Industry Corp. is a fairly classic manufacturer-distributor dispute. The conflict started over twenty years ago and the suit has been pending for nine years, which explains why the parties have widely differing recollection of relevant events. Hat’s off to the court for sorting out the mess....
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013-2022 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.