Eversheds Sutherland 11th Circuit Business Blog
content top

“Pinnacle” Trademark Dispute Offers Lessons in Trademark Trial Procedure

The court vacated a $550,000 jury verdict in a trademark dispute teeming with procedural issues, Pinnacle Advertising & Marketing Group, Inc. v. Pinnacle Advertising & Marketing Group, LLC, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22770 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021), but kept alive the possibility of injunctive relief for the plaintiff on remand.  The case is a primer on the intersection of judge...

A Sticky Situation: Epoxy Company Is Stuck With Evidence of Intent to Copy, and Evidence of Actual Confusion

The interplay between circumstantial evidence under the Lanham Act’s substantive law of trade dress infringement and the rules for summary judgment was at issue in J-B Weld Co. v. Gorilla Glue Co., 2020 WL 6144561 (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2020).  In J-B Weld,all three judges agreed that the district court erred in entering summary judgment for the defendant.  In an opinion authored by...

HVAC Heater Case Won’t Be Heating Up: Dismissal Affirmed

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision on Monday in Warren Technology, Inc. v. UL LLC, 2020 WL 3406585 (11th Cir. June 22, 2020), turned on the basic question of whether the complaint’s allegation of a misrepresentation was a fact that needed to be accepted as true or could be ignored as a mere conclusory allegation. Defendant UL LLC is a nationally recognized testing laboratory that tests...

Monkey See, Monkey Do: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Decision that Defendant’s Gorilla Logo Infringed Plaintiff’s Trademark But Vacates Award of Defendant’s Profits

In PlayNation Play Systems, Inc. v. Velex Corp., 2019 WL 2180589 (11th Cir. May 21, 2019), the Eleventh Circuit considered whether the district court erred in determining that the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s trademark and in awarding damages in the form of the defendant’s profits and cancellation of the defendant’s trademark. Plaintiff sold children’s outdoor play equipment,...

Some Claims are Stronger than Others—Eleventh Circuit Revives Protein Supplement Maker’s Lanham Act Claim But Holds that Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act Claim is Preempted by Federal Law

The Eleventh Circuit recently reversed in part and affirmed in part the dismissal of a complaint alleging violations of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-372, and the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Hi-Tech Pharm., Inc. v. HBS Int’l, 2018 WL 6314282 (11th Cir. Dec. 4, 2018). The case presented important questions about the relationship between...

« Older Entries