People v Mejia
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed to allow withdrawal of guilty pleas. A new law was passed, Pen. Code Sec. 1473.7, that allowed a conviction to be vacated when there was no meaningful understanding of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The court held that there did not have to be proof of actual ineffective assistance of counsel, but merely a preponderance of the evidence.
Matthews v. Barr
(United States Second Circuit) - Upheld a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that a lawful permanent resident was ineligible for cancellation of removal. He had been found removable based on his New York convictions for endangering the welfare of a child. Denied the Irish citizen's petition for review.
Doe v. McAleenan
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an Iranian national may not appeal the revocation of his petition for conditional permanent residency. He had applied under the EB-5 admission category, which offers visas for immigrants who invest in new job-creating enterprises. Affirmed the ruling below, which concluded that Congress has stripped the courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary revocations of visa petitions.
US v. Arellano-Banuelos
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. Rejected the defendant's argument that his confession was admitted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
J.D. v. Azar
(United States DC Circuit) - In an immigration case, struck down as unconstitutional a federal policy that bars unaccompanied alien children in government custody who are pregnant from obtaining an abortion. Upheld a preliminary injunction in relevant part, in this class action.
Perez-Cruz v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted an alien's petition for review of a removal decision. Held that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were not permitted to carry out preplanned mass detentions, interrogations and arrests at a factory without individualized reasonable suspicion. Remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals with instructions to dismiss the Mexican citizen's removal proceeding without prejudice.
Torres v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied an immigrant's petition for review of a removal decision, in a case involving specific immigration provisions affecting the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, which is a U.S. territory. The Philippines citizen had arrived there as a lawful guest worker.
W.M.V.C. v. Barr
(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an immigration matter, held that a Honduran woman who prevailed on a petition for review was not entitled to recover attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government's position was substantially justified, in this case involving a perceived-homosexuality asylum claim.
Toure v. Barr
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an immigration judge did not abuse her discretion by denying a continuance. The immigrant wanted to delay his removal hearing in order to seek lawful permanent residence status based on a brief marriage to a U.S. citizen that immigration authorities had already found to be a sham.
Gonzalez v. Limon
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the statute of limitations expired on a woman's action seeking the issuance of a certificate of citizenship. The five-year clock began running in 2008 when her first request for citizenship was denied. She was born in Mexico to an American father and a Mexican mother.
Najera v. US
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Rejected a Honduras national's claim that he was falsely imprisoned by federal immigration authorities. Affirmed summary judgment for the U.S.
Najera-Rodriguez v. Barr
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Granted a lawful permanent resident's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. Held that his Illinois conviction for unlawful possession of several Xanax pills without a prescription did not render him removable.
People v. Fryhaat
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a criminal defendant who said he was never advised about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea was entitled to a hearing on whether to allow him to vacate his plea.
Guan v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a Chinese citizen's claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture based on evidence that he is a practicing Christian and reports that Christians are persecuted and tortured in China. Granted his petition for review in relevant part and remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings.
Honcharov v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Approved the Board of Immigration Appeals' practice of refusing to address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, denied a petition for review filed by an asylum seeker who had presented a new argument regarding particular social groups to the Board, which refused to consider it.
4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. New York & Co., Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that Defendant’s trademark infringement was willful, the award of gross profits was proper. However, the question of attorney’s fees and pre-judgement interest is remanded for further proceedings.
SportFuel, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Gatorade's use of the slogan "Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company" was fair use protected by the Lantham Act in a suit alleging trademark violations filed by SportsFuel.
Iancu v. Brunetti
(United States Supreme Court) - Struck down a statutory provision that prohibits the registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks. An entrepreneur who founded a new clothing line filed a First Amendment challenge when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to register his desired trademark FUCT. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with him and invalidated a provision of the Lanham Act. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which five other justices joined.
Uncommon, LLC v. Spigen, Inc.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer of cellphone cases did not hold a valid trademark in the term CAPSULE. Affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant in this trademark infringement lawsuit.
Barrington Music Products, Inc. v. Music and Arts Center
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Addressed a damages issue in a case where a jury found that a musical instrument retailer infringed another retailer's trademark. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion amend the judgment.
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.
Uptown Grill, L.L.C. v. Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc.
(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute over ownership of a trademark in a restaurant name, affirmed a bench trial decision in part and reversed it in part.
Alliance for Good Government v. Coalition for Better Government
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Remanded for recalculation of an attorney fee award in a trademark infringement action, in which one nonprofit organization accused another of stealing its logo. Both organizations endorse political candidates.
Express Oil Change, L.L.C. v. Mississippi Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Surveyors
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the First Amendment's commercial speech protections entitled a company to operate automotive service centers under the name "Tire Engineers," even though a state board that licenses engineers objected to the use of the profession's occupational title. Reversed and rendered summary judgment in favor of the company, in this declaratory judgment action.
Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a financial services company, holding that the use of its trademarks by a publishing company constituted nominative fair use.
Springboards to Education, Inc. v. Houston Independent School District
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an education services company could not proceed with its Lanham Act lawsuit against a school district for using its marks in the course of operating a summer reading program. Affirmed summary judgment for the school district, finding that the allegedly infringing marks created no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law.
Seventh Avenue, Inc. v. Shaf International, Inc.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that a corporation was in contempt of a consent judgment because its outside counsel failed to respond to a motion alleging a violation of the judgment and to appear at a hearing on the motion, in a trademark infringement case.
Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted they did not violate the Lanham Act by selling greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.
Plixer International, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GMBH
(United States First Circuit) - Held that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a German company in a trademark infringement action did not violate due process. The German company, which operated an English-language website, argued that it lacked the requisite minimum contacts with the United States. Disagreeing, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was constitutional.
In re: Detroit Athletic Co.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the refusal to register the trademark DETROIT ATHLETIC CO. for sports apparel retail services because it was likely to be confused with DETROIT ATHLETIC CLUB for clothing goods. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ruling.
Zheng CAI v. Diamond Hong, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision cancelling registration of plaintiff’s trademark for a green tea product due to the likelihood of confusion with defendant’s registered mark.
Scholz v. Goudreau
(United States First Circuit) - Denied both parties' appeals in a trademark lawsuit between two members of the rock band Boston. A member of the multi-platinum band sued the band's former guitarist for trademark infringement and breach of contract in a dispute over the wording of public statements about the guitarist's former role in the band. At trial, the jury rejected all of the plaintiff's claims and all of the defendant's counterclaims. Both sides appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed.
Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted that they did not violate the Lanham Act by producing greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer who had posted a popular YouTube video known for its catchphrase Honey Badger Don't Care. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.
Excelled Sheepskin and Leather Coat Corp. v. Oregon Brewing Co.
(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed summary judgment for an apparel company in its trademark infringement action. A company that sold leather jackets branded ROGUE contended that a commercial brewery that sold ROGUE-branded beer had infringed its trademark by using the name on t‐shirts and hats. The Second Circuit held that the apparel company was not entitled to summary judgment, because the brewery was the senior user and the evidence did not show that it was precluded by laches.
Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosmetic Warriors LTD
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Judgment affirmed in favor of plaintiff regarding a trademark infringement matter. The court held that because of the delay of the defendant in challenging plaintiff's trademark, the doctrine of laches could be used as a defense. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the doctrine of unclean hands or the inevitable confusion doctrine against plaintiff.
Cortes-Ramos v. Martin-Morales
(United States First Circuit) - Reversed the order to dismiss the plaintiff's copyright and trademark claims stemming from a songwriting contest. Plaintiff entered a songwriting competition and agreed to the terms of the contest rules including an arbitration provision. Plaintiff did not win the contest, but alleges that the song he submitted was used by defendant for a music video. The court held that defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and could not invoke its provisions.
Royal Crown Co. v. Coca Cola Co.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing plaintiffs opposition to the registration of defendants trademarks including the term ZERO. The Federal Court of Appeals determined that the Board erred in legal framing of the question and failed to determine whether the marks were at least highly descriptive.
Moldex-Metric, Inc. v. McKeon Products, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit for trademark infringement relating to foam earplugs in a specific bright green color used by the plaintiffs in their earplugs because the district court's conclusion that the green color mark was functional and therefore not protectable as trade dress was in error. The existence or nonexistence of alternative designs is probative of functionality or nonfunctionality and a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the color was functional remained.
Montauk USA v. 148 South Emerson Associates LLC
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's determination that New York law allows for derivative litigation rights in a suit on Lanham Act claims and a motion for preliminary injunction under the first-filed rule, but vacating the dismissal of the complaint and injunction motion in favor of a first-filed Georgia action because the Georgia suit was transferred to New York, so the reasoning behind the first-filed ruling no longer pertains, and affirming the district court's award of costs, including attorney fees incurred in the Georgia state action.
Eat Right Foods Ltd. v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacating the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant, Whole Foods, in a trademark infringement case, affirming the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and remanding a case in which disputed material facts relating to the affirmative defenses of laches and acquiescence hadn't been resolved in the case of a company that used to sell EatRight cookies to Whole Foods, who later began marketing food products under the mark EatRight America.
In Re: Tempnology, LLC
(United States First Circuit) - Affirming a bankruptcy court decision that the rejection of an executory contract left the plaintiff with only a pre-petition damages claim in lieu of any obligation by the debtor to further perform under a trademark license agreement.
In Re Brunetti
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversing the decision to refuse to register the mark FUCT because it comprises immoral or scandalous matter because the court held that the bar on registering immoral or scandalous marks is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Twentieth Century Fox Television v. Empire Distribution, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment in favor of Fox, holding that their use of the name 'Empire' was protected by the First Amendment and therefore was outside of the reach of the Lanham Act and their use of the word as a show title did not infringe on a record label's trademark rights.
Dan Farr Productions v. San Diego Comic Convention
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Ordering the district court to vacate orders prohibiting the petitioner from expressing their views on litigation or republishing public documents over social media platforms, and requiring them to post a disclaimer prohibiting comment on the litigation because this amounted to prior restraint on their First Amendment rights.
In Re I.Am.Symbolic, LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's affirmation of a US Patent and Trademark Office attorney's refusal to register the appellant's trademark on the ground of the likelihood of confusion with registered marks because the Board did not err in its determination of the likelihood of confusion.
Earnhardt v. Earnhardt
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacating and remanding the decision that the trademark in 'EARNHARDT COLLECTION' was not primarily a surname because it was unclear whether the Board applied the reasoning in In re Hutchinson Technology, Inc. case to determine whether the word collection was merely descriptive of the services offered and what the primary significance of the mark as a whole was to the general public.
Parks LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming a summary judgment to the defendant Tyson Foods in a dispute involving their use of the word 'Parks' in reference to hotdogs where the plaintiff once held trademark on this word's use to sell hotdogs until it failed to renew the trademark in the early 2000's.
Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming that a 1999 amendment to trademark statutes did not eliminate the plaintiff's requirement that they establish wilfulness to justify the award of defendant's profits in a trademark infringement case, but reversing the holding that the defendant's mark was not likely to cause confusion and remanding for inquiry into intent.
Marketquest Group, Inc. v. BIC Corp.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's summary judgment to the defendants in a trademark infringement suit, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether defendant's use of 'all-in-one' was protected by the fair use defense and that the district court erred in applying fair use analysis after determining that plaintiff presented no evidence of likely confusion.
Matal v. Tam
(United States Supreme Court) - In a trademark case in which the lead singer of the rock group 'The Slants' chose this moniker in order to 'reclaim' the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons, and then sought federal registration of the mark 'THE SLANTS,' the en banc Federal Circuit's judgment overruling The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)'s denial of the application under the Lanham Act's disparagement clause, is affirmed where: 1) the disparagement clause applies to marks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group; and 2) the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.