We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-3 of 3

Exotic dancing attire may be inherently distinctive, but the Chippendales "Cuffs & Collar" costume is not

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 28 2010

Addressing whether the well-known Chippendales "Cuffs & Collar" costume is inherently distinctive for adult entertainment services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the refusal to register the mark, finding that the costume was not inherently distinctive, but is a "mere variant or refinement" of the Playboy Bunny costume

Tank top tussle Britney Spears as an indicator of delicious confusion

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2010

In a decision highlighting the fact-intensive nature of trademark disputes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court reversed a grant of summary judgment but acknowledged that it was “far from certain that consumers were likely to be confused” by defendant’s use of the word DELICIOUS

Extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act is California Dreamin’

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 27 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit intervened in a battle between two “Beach Boys” involving Lanham Act claims and California right of publicity claims, concluding in a case in which the plaintiff alleged conduct occurring in Great Britain affected U.S. commerce