LexBlog IP

MARCH 5, 2024

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Claims: Infringement Defendant: Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Cnsl: Eureka Intellectual Property Law Patents: 8,107,940 (System and method for providing advertising on a mobile device); 8,787,895 (System and method for providing advertising on a device) Ameranth, Inc. DoorDash, Inc.

Reporting 52

Reporting Litigation Patent IP 52

43(B)log

APRIL 29, 2024

Hetronic International, Inc. It executed licensing and distribution agreements for the remotes with two European companies, collectively Abitron. 1117; see also 1-800 Contacts, Inc. WhenU.Com, Inc., Orris, Inc., Apple Inc., This is a proximate cause requirement (citing Lexmark ). 4th -, Nos.

Advertising 59

Advertising Advertising Trademark Branding 59

LexBlog IP

AUGUST 22, 2022

2022) the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decision cancelling two registrations for marks identical to those used outside of the US by The Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”). Under Lexmark International, Inc.

Registration 40

Registration Ownership Trademark Marketing 40

The TTABlog

JANUARY 4, 2022

Chutter, Inc. Great Management Group, LLC and Chutter, Inc. American Crocodile International Group, Inc. Philanthropist.com, Inc. The Coca-Cola Company v. Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc. In re Dolce Vita Footwear, Inc. Additional commentary on each case may be found at the linked TTABlog post.

Registration 57

Registration Ownership Licensing Trademark 57

43(B)log

APRIL 25, 2022

The Defendants are two companies that inspect structural plywood and, if it conforms to the PS 1-09 standard, stamp the wood as PS 1-09-compliant. Google, Inc., Defendants denied making any statements at all , since in their view it was the Brazilian companies that made and stamped the wood, and who were really speaking.

False Advertising 72

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Licensing 72

43(B)log

AUGUST 12, 2021

It primarily serves insurance companies, administering their glass breakage coverage; commercial customers who have vehicle fleets; and indivudal consumers who may or may not have windshield damage insurance. He also unsuccessfully sued insurance companies and Safelite based on similar claims in the past, including in 2003 and 2004.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Marketing 59

43(B)log

OCTOBER 4, 2021

The Second Circuit, in Hamilton International Ltd. The court applied the Lexmark zone of interests and proximate cause requirements, reasoning that “a plaintiff may not prevail on a false association claim without alleging a commercial injury.” Vortic LLC, No. 20-3369-cv (2d Cir. But Abrahams failed to do so. AJ Press LLC, F.Supp.3d

IP 94

IP Trademark Advertising Advertising 94