Punchbowl, Inc. v. AJ Press, LLC, 90 F.4th 1022 (9th Cir. 2024).
By SARA ESMAEILI
Appellee AJ Press, LLC (“AJ Press”) is a media company that owns and operates Punchbowl News, an online, subscription-based political news publication founded in 2021. It filed trademark applications for “Punchbowl News” and “Punchbowl Press.”
Appellant Punchbowl, Inc. (“Punchbowl”) is a technology company that provides online invitations and greeting cards. It has used the “Punchbowl” mark since at least 2006 and registered it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2013.
Punchbowl sued AJ Press for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, arguing AJ Press’s use of “Punchbowl” created consumer confusion.
* * * * * * *
EOLAS Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-05446-JST, 2024 WL 371959 (Fed. Cir, Feb. 1, 2024).
By VIVIAN LIU
Eolas Technologies Incorporated (“Eolas”) sued Amazon.com, Inc., Google LLC, and Walmart, Inc. (collectively, “Appellees”) for infringing claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,195,507 (“the ‘507 patent”). The ‘507 patent, claiming priority from a 1994 patent, related to enabling interactivity with remote objects on a client computer browser using distributed computing. The patent described a system where tasks like rendering large images or calculating spreadsheet cells are performed more effectively by distributing the processing across multiple computers on a network, such as the World Wide Web. The specification highlighted the limitations of earlier systems due to limited client-side processing power and bandwidth. The invention aimed to allow users to manipulate data objects interactively within web pages, using applications configured to work within a web browser as part of a distributed application.
* * * * * * *
Philpot v. Indep. J. Rev., 92 F.4th 252 (4th Cir. 2024).
By JOSEPH SOBERON
Larry G. Philpot (“Philpot”) is a professional concert photographer with a catalog of approximately 45,000 images. On August 15, 2023, Philpot registered a photograph of musician Ted Nugent with the United States Copyright Office and was granted registration on August 21, 2023. Philpot published the photograph on Wikimedia Commons, where he allowed free use of the photograph so long as users included text crediting Philpot.
Prior to registering the Nugent photograph with the Copyright Office, Philpot entered into a licensing agreement with AXS TV to allow review of a curated set of 1,000 of his images, including the Nugent photograph.
In 2016, the Independent Journal Review (“IJR”) used the Nugent photograph in an online article without crediting Philpot. Philpot later filed suit against IJR for copyright infringement regarding its use of the Nugent photograph.
* * * * * * *
Pa. State Univ. v. Vintage Brand, LLC, 614 F. Supp. 3d 101 (M.D. Pa. 2022).
By EMILY PEDRO
In June 2021, Plaintiff, Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”) filed a lawsuit against Vintage Brand, LLC, alleging unauthorized use of its trademarks on merchandise. Penn State owns three federally registered trademarks that represent its historic images and logos: (1) the word mark “Penn State,” which is registered for various goods, including apparel, banners, flasks, USB flash drives, and salt and pepper shakers; (2) an image featuring the school’s mascot, “Pozniak Lion”; and (3) an image of the Penn State seal.
Defendant, Vintage Brand, LLC (“Vintage Brand”) is an online retailer that specializes in screen-printed merchandise featuring retro logos and historical imagery. Vintage Brand was founded in 2017 and began to reproduce apparel and gear to represent sports history.
Penn State sued Vintage Brand for violating federal and state trademark laws and engaging in unfair competition. Penn State alleged that Vintage Brand’s products misled consumers to believe their products were licensed by Penn State, resulting in consumer confusion, quality control issues, and reputational harm.
* * * * * * *
Ben. Cosmetics LLC v. e.l.f. Cosmetics, Inc., No. 23-cv-008861-RS, 2024 WL 5135604 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2024).
By MADELINE TOLL
Plaintiff, Benefit Cosmetics LLC (“Benefit”), is a cosmetics company founded in 1967 that designs, manufactures, and sells mascaras and a variety of other cosmetic products, which are sold in the United States and abroad in over fifty-five countries. Benefit is known as a “prestige” beauty company. Prestige companies sell products at a higher price than their counterparts (often referred to as “mass” cosmetics products). Prestige products are characteristically sold in department stores, beauty specialty stores, or on those stores’ websites. Benefit’s products are known for their catchy, feminine, and sometimes retro branding. Defendant, e.l.f. Cosmetics, Inc. (“e.l.f.”) is a cosmetics company founded in 2004 that offers a range of beauty, skin, and cosmetics products in the United States. E.l.f. 1 is a mass beauty company. Mass beauty products like e.l.f. are sold in drug stores, grocery stores, and big-box stores – notably retailers that sell many products other than cosmetics. E.l.f.’s products are vegan and cruelty-free, which e.l.f. highlights in its marketing and branding. This is a lawsuit regarding alleged trademark and trade dress infringement.
* * * * * * *
