Trademark infringement is not unheard of to Under Armour – although Under Armour is usually the one claiming infringement. The popular athletic company has brought several trademark infringement suits, including recent lawsuits against Puppy Armour, Inner Armour, Salt Armour and Ass Armour.
However, the tables recently turned when Under Armour filed a declaratory judgment action that it was not infringing. A declaratory judgment action is filed to clarify the legal rights of parties.
“Bluetiful” is the newest addition to the 24-count Crayola crayon box. The color was inspired by YInMn Blue, the blue pigment discovered accidentally in 2009 by chemist Mas Subramanian and his team at Oregon State University. Bluetiful replaces the yellowish color, Dandelion. (What was wrong with Dandelion?)
Was “bluetiful” an error in branding? Critics say the name will teach children a non-word, and incorrect spelling. No doubt it will. But according to Crayola’s CEO, “[b]luetiful was the clear winner,” out of the other possible names, Blue Moon Bliss, Dreams Come Blue, Reach for the Stars, and Star Spangled Blue.
Disconnects in language, culture, and customer attitudes have resulted in some pretty memorable and clear branding misses.
In an ongoing trademark dispute between Forever 21 and Gucci, Forever 21, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., et al., 2:17-cv-04706 (C.D. Cal.), Gucci recently got the upper hand, slightly: the court granted Gucci’s partial motion to dismiss–but permitted Forever 21 to amend its complaint.
This dispute began nearly a year ago, in December 2016, when Gucci sent Forever 21 a cease and desist letter demanding that Forever 21 cease all sales of garments and accessories bearing the stripe combination blue-red-blue. Gucci owns a federal trademark registration for that stripe combination.
Confederate flags were not the only symbol used by white nationalists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia.
To the dismay of the Detroit Red Wings hockey team – so was their logo. Well almost.
On the left is the Detroit Red Wings logo; on the right is the white nationalist group’s logo:
image courtesy of CNN
The spokes in the wheel on the Detroit Right Wings’ logo were altered to resemble the Nazi SS lightning bolt.
The Detroit Red Wings quickly disavowed any affiliation:
“[t]he Detroit Red Wings vehemently disagree with and are not associated in any way with the event taking place today in Charlottesville, Va. The Red Wings believe that hockey is for everyone, and we celebrate the great diversity of our fan base and our nation. We are exploring every possible legal action as it pertains to the misuse of our logo in this disturbing demonstration.” Continue reading
Does Pandora’s single P mark infringe PayPal’s double P mark? PayPal says yes and filed a lawsuit claiming Pandora’s use of the single P mark causes confusion among consumers.
Every Federal circuit has adopted some form of the “likelihood of confusion” factors the Fourth Circuit articulated in George & Co. LLC v. Imagination Ent. Ltd., 575 F. 3d 383 (4th Cir. 2009). Applying those factors here to the facts as currently known in the PayPal, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 2017 WL 2289184 (S.D.N.Y.) case would go something like this:
Is the Plaintiff’s mark distinctive? Answer: Yes. Most consumers recognize the blue double P as PayPal’s logo.
