Trademark Law

The year 2014 will be remembered as the year when Canada rewrote its trademark laws. Much has been written on this subject and much more will be written over the next few years. However, 2014 was also an exceptionally busy year for trademark cases in Canada. While no single case stood out above the rest, there were a number of interesting cases of which both legal professionals and brand owners should take note.

When is a trademark clearly descriptive of geographic origin?

In Lum v Dr Coby Cragg Inc the Federal Court considered whether the registered mark OCEAN PARK for use with “dental clinics” was clearly descriptive of place of origin, as the dental clinic in question was located in an area called Ocean Park. The court applied a two-part test that:

• the mark must point to a place; and
• the place must be indigenous to the services in question.

The plaintiff failed on the second part of the test as Ocean Park was not indigenous to dental services. There was no evidence that a reasonable person hearing the term 'Ocean Park' would automatically think of going to the dentist, and as a result the registration was maintained.

In MC Imports Ltd v Afod Ltd the Federal Court considered whether the registered mark LINGAYEN, covering a variety of Filipino foods – including bagoong, a fish sauce – was clearly descriptive of the place of origin of these products. The evidence showed that Lingayen was a municipality in the Philippines and a known source of bagoong. Further, the registrant’s goods originated from Lingayen. As such, the court deemed the mark to be clearly descriptive of the place of origin and the registration was ordered to be expunged.

The Federal Court also considered the issue from the perspective of the ordinary consumer and concluded that he or she would not be without knowledge, and would have some intelligence and concern about the item being purchased. The ordinary consumer in this case would essentially be Canadians of Filipino or Southeast Asian origin, a group among which LINGAYEN would be viewed as clearly descriptive of origin.  

Both of these decisions have been appealed, providing the Federal Court of Appeal an opportunity to clarify the test to be applied in determining if a mark is objectionable on the basis that it is clearly descriptive of place of origin.

Distinctiveness of geographical designation not linked to absence of deception

London Drugs Limited v International Clothiers Inc concerned London Drugs, a well-known Canadian drugstore chain which owns various trademark registrations incorporating the term 'London'. It appealed a decision of the Opposition Board that allowed applications for the trademark SMITH & BARNES LONDON, covering a variety of retail store services and related wares.

In assessing confusion, the Federal Court rejected the argument that a trademark incorporating a geographical term may be distinctive where it is used on wares or services that have no pre-existing connection to the designation. It noted that the distinctiveness of a mark has to do with its originality, uniqueness and inventiveness, not with the absence of deception. Geographical designations such as 'London' are not inherently distinctive, and should not be accorded a high degree of protection unless they have acquired distinctiveness over time. The court upheld the board’s decision and rejected the appeal.

Assessing confusion between inherently weak letter marks

In Gemological Institute of America v Gemology Headquarters International an application for the mark GHI was opposed by the Gemological Institute of America on the basis of confusion with its registered trademark, GIA. Both marks covered goods and services in the field of gemology. The Opposition Board noted the inherent weakness of marks consisting of letter acronyms and rejected the opposition. On appeal to the Federal Court, fresh evidence was filed to show that while not inherently distinctive, the opponent’s GIA mark had been used over a significant period of time and was well known in Canada. The court noted that if this new evidence had been put before the board, it would have approached the confusion analysis differently and would have considered that the opponent’s mark was well known. The appeal was allowed, and the application to register GHI was refused. The court’s decision has been appealed.

Consideration of nature of wares and channels of trade

In Hayabusa Fightwear Inc v Suzuki Motor Corporation the applicant, a company specialising in mixed martial arts, appealed the board’s decision to refuse its application to register HAYABUSA for use with clothing. Suzuki opposed the application based on its registration for the identical mark HAYABUSA for motorcycles and on its prior use of HAYABUSA with motorcycles and caps.

The court found that the board had failed to consider the different channels of trade for the parties’ products. As Suzuki did not hold a registration covering “caps”, it was imperative to consider its actual use with these goods, which involved sales strictly through authorised Suzuki dealers (ie, a single channel of trade and to targeted consumers). The fact that it would be virtually impossible to find the parties’ wares in the same channels of trade should have been determinative of the matter in favour of Hayabusa Fightwear. The court set aside the decision of the board and allowed the application.

Similarly, in Bridgestone Corporation v Campagnolo SRL the nature of the wares and channels of trade were key considerations. Campagnolo, a manufacturer of track and competitive road racing bicycle parts and accessories, applied to register the trademark POTENZA for bicycle parts and accessories, but not including tyres, brakes, wheels, rims and spokes. Bridgestone – primarily known for its automotive products – opposed based on its registration of the identical mark POTENZA in association with tyres, tubes and wheels. The board held that there was no reasonable likelihood of confusion, and on appeal the court agreed.

Bridgestone argued that it was erroneous to consider only current channels of trade – just because Campagnolo sold high-end bicycle components in specialty stores did not mean that it would not market a cheaper line in big-box stores in the future. The court disagreed, noting that the parties’ respective statements of wares must be read with a view to determining the probable channels of trade as opposed to the possible channels of trade.

Always confirm that the other side is still active

In Bacardi & Co Ltd v The Devil’s Martini Inc an application for the trademark DEVIL’S MARTINI was unsuccessfully opposed by Bacardi, which appealed to the Federal Court. During the appeal, it became apparent that the applicant had been dissolved. After confirming that the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee in Ontario did not intend to continue with the application and that the director appointed under the Ontario Business Corportations Act did not intend to oppose the appeal, the court held that the mark was not registrable under Section 30 of the act and ordered that the application be refused. 

Issue raised for first time on appeal refused

In Cohen v Susan Fiedler Incorporated Cohen’s application for the 'F CANCER and design' mark was successfully opposed by Fiedler on the basis of Fiedler’s prior use of a series of unregistered F CANCER marks. On appeal, Cohen raised an entirely new argument – that the word 'f***' was obscene and therefore prohibited by Section 9(1)(j) of the act. The court noted that the argument was “somewhat counter-intuitive” given that it would be fatal to Cohen’s own application, but Cohen conceded that her goal was not the registration of her own mark, but rather the collateral purpose of obtaining a ruling from the court that Fiedler had no enforceable common law rights to its F CANCER marks.

The court held that the question should have been decided by the Opposition Board, the expert tribunal with the authority to decide such questions, and that there was no valid reason why the argument could not have been raised before the board. The appeal was refused and the court went on to assess elevated costs, given that the appeal had been brought for collateral purposes.

Strict interpretation of 'use in Canada' not applicable in Section 45 proceedings

In Ridout v HJ Heinz Company Australia Ltd, a non-use cancellation proceeding, the registrar of trademarks maintained the registered mark OX & PALM for use with meat and processed meat. The evidence before the registrar showed that the registrant had received a purchase order for the wares and the goods were delivered to a shipper in Australia before expiry of the material period, but that they were subsequently delivered to the Canadian customer three days after the expiration of the material period. The registrar maintained the registration, noting that the mark was not “deadwood” and that this case did not warrant a strict interpretation of 'use'. The Federal Court upheld the decision, concluding that there was a transfer of property in the goods in Canada when they were delivered to the shipping entity in Australia, so long as the delivery to Canada was ultimately completed.

Thymes decision distinguished

The Reitmans (Canada) Ltd v Thymes Ltd decision confirmed that an application claiming use and registration in another jurisdiction must have all of the requisite elements present (use and the foreign registration, or at least a pending application) as of the Canadian filing date. If not, the application could be successfully opposed. Coors Brewing Company v Anheuser-Busch, LLC established that an allegation of an improper foreign registration and use claim in a registered mark did not constitute a ground for expungement. A lack of foreign use at the Canadian filing date is not fatal to registered trademarks that are issued based on a claim of foreign use and registration, provided that the claim was true at the time that it was made.

In August 2010 Anheuser filed a US application to register GRAB SOME BUDS based on intended use in the United States. A corresponding Canadian application was filed in mid-September 2010 based on proposed use in Canada. Use commenced in the United States in late September 2010 and the US case issued to registration in March 2011. In February 2011 Anheuser amended its Canadian application to rely on foreign (US) use and registration. The Canadian application proceeded to registration on this basis.  

Coors applied to expunge Anheuser’s Canadian registration, arguing that it was invalid since use of the mark did not commence in the United States until after the Canadian filing date. The court disagreed and upheld the registration. The sole basis for invalidating the registration raised by Coors was the alleged improper foreign registration and use claim. However, the grounds on which a registration may be expunged are set forth in Section 18 of the Trademarks Act, and the court confirmed that non-compliance with procedural filing requirements under Section 30 of the act does not constitute grounds for expungement. Further, while a misstatement in an application may present a ground for expungement, the statement made by Anheuser in its application was true when it was made, and as such it did not constitute a misstatement.

Section 9 objection at examination overturned by Federal Court

In Jack Black LLC v Canada (Attorney General) the applicant applied to register JACK BLACK for skincare products. The examiner objected to the registrability of the mark on the basis that Jack Black is a “famous living individual”. On appeal, the Federal Court concluded that the print-outs from the Internet relied on by the examiner in reaching his decision were insufficient to establish that there was an individual named Jack Black with a significant public reputation across Canada. The applicant also filed new evidence showing that the skincare products offered under its mark were not new, and in fact benefited from a fairly large circulation, without objection from Black.

Federal Court considers official marks

In Terrace (City) v Urban Distilleries Inc, which concerned the official mark SPIRIT BEAR, the failure to show prior adoption and use resulted in a declaration that the official mark was unenforceable. The court noted that adoption “is a low bar; all a party must do is state it has adopted the mark”. Use requires that the mark be made available for public display before publication. The court noted that “such use cannot be abstract. It must be associated with a particular ware or service, and a connection must be made with the wares or service and the mark”.

In surveying the relevant case law, the court noted that public display can include the display of a mark on a website in association with a particular service; use can be found when an announcement for the services and a logo, containing the mark and a graphical depiction of the mark, have been published in a public newsletter. A mark is not used where it is not distinguished from surrounding text, nor when it is used on internal communications only. 

The evidence fell short of establishing use, with the result that the SPIRIT BEAR official mark was deemed unenforceable. The court’s decision has been appealed.

In TCC Holdings Inc v Families as Support Teams Society the court considered whether a registered charity qualified as a public authority for the purposes of Section 9 of the act. The respondent, the Families as Support Teams Society, was a registered charity when it obtained the protection of Section 9, but its charity status was revoked shortly thereafter. It did not participate in the proceedings.

The court was satisfied that the respondent was not a public authority, noting that it did not meet the test of significant governmental control. As such, the court did not have to consider whether its activities satisfied the public benefit requirement. The court further noted that even if it had been a public authority, it ceased to be one when its charitable status was revoked, such that it was not entitled to benefit from the official mark.

Punitive and aggravated damages distinguished

In Bauer Hockey Corp v Sport Maska Inc, on a motion dealing with the sufficiency of pleadings, the Federal Court of Appeal commented on the distinction between punitive and aggravated damages. The court noted the following:

• Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant in situations where the defendant’s misconduct is so malicious, oppressive and high handed that it offends the court’s sense of decency. They are not limited to situations of litigation misconduct.
• Aggravated damages are intended to compensate the plaintiff and are usually awarded in relation to intangible injuries (humiliation or mental distress), and it is questionable whether such damages can be claimed by a corporation.

The court struck Bauer’s claim to aggravated damages, but allowed the claim for punitive damages to remain in the statement of claim. While allegations of wilful and knowing infringement alone do not support a claim to punitive damages, the court held that it was not plain and obvious that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action with respect to punitive damages, as there were other allegations to be considered.

Criminal penalties stemming from sale of counterfeit goods

In R v Strowbridge the accused was seen selling counterfeit brand-name products from the back of a van parked next to the highway, and C$500-worth of products were seized. He pled guilty to fraud and copyright and trademark infringement, and was sentenced to 15 months in prison – six of which were for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act and trademark infringement under the Criminal Code.

On appeal, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal canvassed sentencing decisions relating to the sale of counterfeit goods, primarily under the Copyright Act, most of which resulted in conditional sentences. The court distinguished between operations where customers buy goods from an ostensibly legitimate storefront operation versus the purchase of goods from the back of a van parked on the side of a highway, noting that while purchasers of counterfeit goods can be victims, there was no indication that they were in this case. The court deemed Strowbridge’s operation to be marginal and unsophisticated. 

The court agreed that a six-month sentence was disproportionately long and reduced it to two. This decision is of particular interest given the recent amendments to the Trademarks Act, which provide for significant criminal penalties in relation to counterfeiting activities.

Source: http://www.iam-media.com/reports/detail.aspx?g=3a07dca3-381e-4054-b2be-d0209a329ad4 

Administrative Trademark Decisions May Preclude Infringement Litigation

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 24, 2015, that Trial Trademark and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decisions “can be weighty enough” to preclude a district court from litigating the likelihood of confusion between trademarks in a subsequent infringement suit. The decision in B&B Hardware, Inc. v Hargis Industries, Inc. may not settle the nearly 20-year dispute between the owners of the SEALTIGHT and SEALTITE marks; however, the ruling is likely to increase the importance of TTAB proceedings. In certain circumstances, federal district courts may be bound by TTAB determinations that trademarks are confusingly similar under the doctrine of issue preclusion. Issue preclusion prevents the same issues from being litigated more than once, saving time and resources. 

As the Court explained, “[t]he full story [of the parties’ dispute] could fill a long, unhappy book.”  By 2003, the year B&B filed its opposition with the TTAB to stop Hargis from obtaining a federal trademark registration for a SEALTITE mark, the parties had been litigating trademark infringement claims for eight years.  B&B, the owner of a federal registration for SEALTIGHT for metal fasteners used in the aerospace industry, asserted that Hargis’ SEALTITE mark for fasteners used in building construction created a likelihood of confusion.

B&B won the TTAB opposition proceeding, and Hargis was denied federal registration of the SEALTITE mark. The TTAB determined that the SEALTITE mark was likely to cause confusion with the prior-registered SEALTIGHT mark. The TTAB made the determination based on a multi-factor likelihood of confusion analysis that examines the similarity of the marks, the goods, the customers and the trade channels, among other considerations.  

In this case, the TTAB only decided the narrow issue of the right to own a federal trademark registration. In contrast to a federal court, the TTAB cannot order a party to stop using a mark.  Following its loss at the TTAB, Hargis continued use of its SEALTITE mark. In subsequent infringement proceedings, B&B argued that the TTAB’s finding of a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks should stand, and that Hargis should not be able to re-litigate the issue. Both the district court and the Eighth Circuit rejected B&B’s argument and found that issue preclusion did not apply.

The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and held that “[s]o long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when the usages adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those before the district court, issue preclusion should apply.” The Court gave several reasons for this decision, including its observation that “the same likelihood-of-confusion standard applies to both registration and infringement.”

The case is now remanded to the lower court to determine if issue preclusion should apply on these specific facts, and thus the fight over the SEALTIGHT and SEALTITEmarks is likely to continue. The Court also explained that “for a great many registration decisions [from the TTAB] issue preclusion obviously will not apply because the ordinary elements will not be met.”

For example, the Court recognized the ordinary elements will not be met when the owner of a mark uses its mark in ways that are materially different from the trademark uses disclosed in a trademark application for registration. The TTAB decision will not have a preclusive effect “if the TTAB does not consider the marketplace usage of the parties’ marks[.]”

The impact of B&B Hardware on brand owners may be minimal. TTAB proceedings are routinely suspended for federal litigation involving the same parties and the same marks; however, parties that participate in a  TTAB case will need to carefully evaluate the potential for issue preclusion in a subsequent action. Indeed, as the Court explained, “[w]hen registration is opposed, there is a good reason to think that both sides will take the matter seriously.”

For trademark owners that disagree with a TTAB decision, they can pursue a de novo review of the TTAB decision before either the Federal Circuit or a U.S. District Court. Otherwise, there is a possibility that issue preclusion may impact subsequent infringement litigation involving the same marks.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/administrative-trademark-decisions-may-preclude-infringement-litigation

Toyo sues Toyomoto for trademark infringement

Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiaries are suing Japan Toyomoto Tire Corp. and its affiliates for infringing the Toyo trademark.

At the same time, Toyo reported the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has issued a permanent injunction against Toyama Tyre Corp. Ltd. in a similar trademark infringement case filed last November.

Toyo filed the action against Toyomoto, which it calls a Chinese corporation, in the same court in Nevada, where both companies exhibited at the recent Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association trade show in Las Vegas.

In the complaint, Toyo Tires alleges that Toyomoto is marketing and selling tires using the Toyomoto mark, related domain names, and logos in direct infringement of Toyo Tires’ long established Toyo trade name and trademark.

The complaint states: “Defendants… have intentionally adopted the Toyomoto mark to take advantage of the tremendous reputation and goodwill of the famous Toyo marks, and continue to do so knowing of the irreparable harm that they have caused and will continue to cause Toyo, its marks, and the public.”

The court issued a preliminary injunction against Toyomoto on Nov. 12, stating: “The Toyomoto mark is confusingly similar to the Toyo marks, and the defendants are using the mark for the same goods covered by Toyo’s trademark registrations. In addition, defendants are claiming that they are a Japanese company, (which is likely to exacerbate confusion with Japan-based Toyo), even though defendants are China-based companies.”

The court’s ruling means Toyomoto is preliminarily enjoined from using the Toyomoto mark in commerce, including the sale, distribution, promotion and advertising of tires bearing the Toyomoto mark.

Toyo is seeking permanent injunctive relief to prohibit Toyomoto from continuing to infringe on Toyo Tires’ intellectual property rights, together with other corrective relief, including destruction of infringing products and materials, and recovery for damages arising from Toyomoto’s actions.

Toyomoto is a trademark belonging to Kabusikiki Kaisha Tokyo Nihoon Rubber, a Tokyo-based company founded in 1985 by Takahasi Takuo. The site attributes the name to Mōri Toyomoto, a 15th century warlord of the province of Aki.

Takuo later established Japan Toyomoto Tire Corp. and introduced the tire brand in 2011. The site also lists three subsidiaries: Toyomoto (Beijing) International Trading Co.; Toyomoto Tire (U.S.) Inc.; and Toyomoto OTR Division.

Neither Toyo nor Toyomoto identifies the Chinese manufacturer of the Toyomoto brand, but Toyomoto on its website states it has its own tire manufacturing technology and claims to be supplying technology and know-how to an entity it identifies as Saudi Company for Tyre Manufacturing, which Tyomoto claims is setting up a tire production unit in the Gulf States.

http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20141126/NEWS/141129968/toyo-sues-toyomoto-for-trademark-infringement

Classified Patents, Nintendo, Amazon: Intellectual Property

A Maryland inventor has asked a court to clarify whether his patent applications are classified.

Frank Joseph Trunk III of Gaithersburg, Maryland, sued in federal court in Washington, saying he filed patent applications in the area of physics and material physics beginning in 1994. The applications were related to engineering design, “both civil and military,” he said in court papers.

Beginning in January 2000, he said, his applications were made subject to a secrecy order on aircraft and ship stealth technology, submarine stealth technology and nuclear-weapon design. Trunk said he had never been issued a security clearance nor had he ever been granted contractor status that would enable him to get a security clearance.

As a result, he claimed, he was placed under the threat of possible criminal violations for possession of classified information without a security clearance. In his complaint, Trunk said his various attempts over the years to get clarification of his patent applications’ status have brought him contradictory responses. As a result, Trunk said, he has had to forgo possible consulting arrangements with NASA and its contractors because he believes he cannot discuss or disclose the information in his applications.

He asked the court to rule on whether his applications are still classified or if they have been declassified, whether property declassification procedures have been followed and if he is authorized to have access to that information.

Trunk also is seeking a list of agencies that consider the information still classified and a statement of the conditions under which the information may be disclosed.

When he filed his complaint Dec. 8, he asked that the entire case be sealed. The court rejected that request, saying Trunk failed to provide support for his motion to seal “as it is unclear whether the government ever classified the patent applications to begin with.” The court ordered the Trunk’s complaint and the entire case be unsealed.

According to the database of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, there is one published patent application -- 20050032029 -- with a Frank J. Trunk listed as the inventor. The application covers a method of solving engineering design problems related to stress, strain and deformation of viscolastic materials, those having viscous and elastic properties. It was submitted in July 2001 and not published until February 2005. It lists an address in Houston for the inventor.

Gary Hnath of Chicago’s Mayer Brown LLP, counsel for Trunk, said in an e-mail this application was originally classified and his client is seeking clarification on whether it has been properly unclassified.

The case is Trunk v. Mabus, 1:14-cv-02139, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia(Washington).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-26/classified-patents-nintendo-new-balance-intellectual-property.html

trademark infringement cases can be decided by USPTO

The way that trademark disputes are fought may be in the balance on Dec. 2, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. Briefing is now complete on whether an administrative decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refusing (or canceling) registration of a trademark on the basis of likelihood of confusion (under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act) should be binding in subsequent trademark infringement litigation directed to use of the same mark.

To find trademark infringement, a district court must find a likelihood of confusion about the source of goods or services. Each court uses a rubric to analyze this, and the TTAB uses a different rubric to assess likelihood of confusion in the Section 2(d) context. But courts in different circuits already use different rubrics to assess likelihood of confusion (some treating it as a question of law, others treating it as a question of fact, and most using their own iteration of factors to be considered), and a final decision from one circuit will nonetheless bar re-litigation of likelihood of confusion in other circuits. B&B says that a TTAB Section 2(d) finding should be treated the same way, and the government supports that position.

Decisions of federal agencies are sometimes given preclusive effect in the district courts. Hargis says that wasn’t Congress’ intent here. Because likelihood of confusion is often the key to a trademark infringement claim, preclusion would render trademark infringement actions pro forma, Hargis argues. Often, but not always. Proving infringement also requires proof that the plaintiff has rights that can be enforced against the defendant, and that isn't always a trivial issue. In B&B itself, Hargis began using its mark before B&B registered its own mark, and if B&B’s mark wasn’t recognized as a mark before Hargis began its use, then Hargis might be permitted to continue its use despite a likelihood of confusion.

TTAB decisions on registrability are reviewable de novo in the district courts, and Hargis says that shows that Congress didn’t intend for TTAB decisions to have preclusive effect. Issues of registrability are the TTAB’s bailiwick, and it would seem incongruous that a TTAB finding on registrability would be reviewed de novo by a district court, while a TTAB finding on likelihood of confusion — the lynchpin of most infringement claims, which are outside the TTAB’s jurisdiction — would be binding on the same court. That compares apples to oranges, however. A TTAB finding on registrability is only subject to de novo review as part of the appeal process. B&B isn’t arguing that a TTAB decision that is still subject to appeal should be binding on the district courts.

Preclusion would deprive accused infringers of their right to a jury trial. But bench trial decisions do sometimes preclude re-litigation even when there was a right to a jury trial. That doesn’t happen when the issue is a question of law, Hargis argues, and, as noted above, some circuits characterize likelihood of confusion as a question of law. Again, however, other circuits treat it as a question of fact, and decisions of administrative agencies on fact issues are sometimes given preclusive effect, or at least deferential, effect.

Preclusion doesn't apply if the issues are different, and Hargis suggests that comparing a finding of likelihood of confusion in the TTAB’s 2(d) context to a finding of likelihood of confusion in an infringement case is like comparing “guilty of robbery” to “guilty of murder.” Comparing “guilty of robbery” to “guilty of murder” is probably more like comparing likelihood of confusion to a different Lanham Act concept: likelihood of dilution.

But focusing on the phrase “likelihood of confusion” alone is too narrow, Hargis says. Infringement requires a likelihood of confusion resulting from a use in commerce, while a Section 2(d) refusal does not require that either mark be actually used. However, the difference in language might be a simple reflection of Congress’ limited power to regulate the use of marks under the commerce clause.

The facts look bad for B&B: Two different juries found in Hargis’ favor, and B&B was admonished below about its litigation tactics. So a quick affirmance shouldn’t be surprising. On the other hand, the Court might decide whether likelihood of confusion is a question of fact or a question of law on its way to resolving the Seventh Amendment issue, and the possibility of a reversal on the merits — with its attendant consequences on how trademark battles are fought — can’t be dismissed.

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/12/01/scotus-to-decide-if-lynchpin-of-trademark-infringe