Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Illinois Tamale Company, a Chicago-based food manufacturer, brought a trademark infringement suit against LC Trademarks and Little Caesar Enterprises, alleging that Little Caesars’ launch and advertising of its “Crazy Puffs” product infringed Iltaco’s registered trademarks for “Pizza Puff” and “Puff.” Iltaco has sold its “Pizza Puff” product for decades and registered the “Pizza Puff” trademark in 2009 and the “Puff” mark in 2022. Little Caesars, a national pizza chain, began selling “Crazy Puffs” in 2024, marketing them with its established “Crazy” branding and trade dress, and included the phrase “4 Hand-Held Pizza Puffs” in small print as part of its advertising.After receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Iltaco, Little Caesars disputed the claims and continued its use of the contested names. Iltaco filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting Lanham Act and related state law claims and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Little Caesars from using “Crazy Puffs,” “Pizza Puff,” or “Puff.” The district court denied the injunction for “Crazy Puffs” and “Puff,” finding no sufficient likelihood of success on those claims, but granted the injunction for “Pizza Puff,” ruling that Iltaco was likely to prove infringement with respect to that mark.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting the injunction for “Pizza Puff,” finding that Iltaco failed to show a likelihood of success in proving the mark was protectable and in rebutting Little Caesars’ fair use defense. The court affirmed the district court’s decision denying the injunction as to “Crazy Puffs” and “Puff.” Thus, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Illinois Tamale Company, Inc. v. LC Trademarks, Inc." on Justia Law

CLEAResult Consulting, Inc. engaged NEXT Payment Solutions, Inc. to create a customized appointment scheduling software called the FAST Tool. After several years of use, CLEAResult acquired another company with its own scheduling platform, the DSMTracker, and decided to transition away from NEXT’s software. CLEAResult analyzed the FAST Tool’s functionality to enhance the DSMTracker, but was never given access to the FAST Tool’s underlying source code or algorithms. NEXT alleged that CLEAResult had secretly misappropriated trade secrets and brought claims for misappropriation under federal law and unjust enrichment under Illinois law.Reviewing the case, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois first granted CLEAResult partial summary judgment on the trade secrets claim, finding NEXT had failed to sufficiently identify its alleged secrets. The court narrowed the claim and required NEXT to provide more detail, but NEXT submitted only vague descriptions of software modules. The court then granted summary judgment in full to CLEAResult, concluding NEXT’s descriptions did not specify protectable trade secrets. The court also granted CLEAResult’s motion in limine, precluding NEXT from pursuing an unjust enrichment claim based on a theory of misusing “other proprietary information,” determining this was a new theory not previously pled. NEXT then voluntarily dismissed its remaining claims, and final judgment was entered for CLEAResult.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that NEXT failed to identify trade secrets with sufficient specificity to survive summary judgment under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The Seventh Circuit also found the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding NEXT’s late-developed unjust enrichment theory, as this constituted an improper new claim. The final judgment in favor of CLEAResult was affirmed. View "NEXT Payment Solutions Inc. v CLEAResult Consulting, Inc." on Justia Law

A young music producer created an instrumental hip-hop beat and uploaded it online without first obtaining a copyright. After hearing a similar beat in a popular song by a well-known rapper, he registered a sound recording copyright for his track and later sued the rapper for copyright infringement, seeking damages and an injunction. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had copied his digital recording, but did not obtain a musical composition copyright, which would have protected the underlying musical elements.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, both parties failed to comply with local rules regarding summary judgment filings. The district court, exercising its discretion, chose not to penalize either side for these procedural lapses. On the merits, the court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the defendant had duplicated the actual digital sound recording, as opposed to merely imitating the musical composition. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The court also awarded costs to the defendant but denied his request for attorney’s fees, finding the plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous or objectively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decisions on all issues. The appellate court held that, for a sound recording copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must present evidence of actual duplication of the digital recording, not just imitation of the musical composition. Because the plaintiff failed to provide such evidence, summary judgment for the defendant was proper. The appellate court also affirmed the district court’s discretionary decisions regarding enforcement of local rules and denial of attorney’s fees. View "Richardson v. Kharbouch" on Justia Law

TWD, LLC filed a complaint against Grunt Style LLC in 2018, alleging trademark infringement. Both companies sell goods with military-related trademarks. Grunt Style counterclaimed, asserting TWD was infringing on its prior trademark. The district court granted Grunt Style's motion for partial summary judgment in April 2022, dismissing all of TWD's claims. The case was reassigned to Judge Hunt, who held a bench trial in 2024 and ordered TWD to pay Grunt Style $739,500. Grunt Style moved to amend the judgment to include interest and permanent injunctive relief, which the district court granted in January 2025.TWD filed a notice of appeal from the amended judgment, which was docketed as appeal No. 25-1305. During a preliminary review, the Seventh Circuit identified a potential jurisdictional issue because the district court's judgment did not explicitly address TWD's counterclaims. The court directed the parties to address whether the judgment was deficient. TWD filed an amended notice of appeal, which was docketed as a new appeal, No. 25-1341. The district court later issued an indicative ruling, signaling its intent to correct the judgment if the case was remanded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court's solution and decided to remand the case for correction of the clerical mistake in the judgment. The court retained jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed the second appeal (No. 25-1341) as unnecessary, without collecting an additional fee. The court emphasized the importance of clear and complete judgments to avoid jurisdictional issues and ensure appellate jurisdiction is clear. View "Grunt Style LLC v TWD, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Republic Technologies (NA), LLC and Republic Tobacco, L.P. manufacture and market OCB brand organic hemp rolling papers, while defendant BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP (HBI) markets RAW brand rolling papers. Republic sued HBI in 2016 for a declaration that OCB’s trade dress did not infringe RAW’s trade dress and later added false advertising claims. HBI counterclaimed, alleging that OCB’s trade dress infringed RAW’s trade dress. A jury trial in 2021 resulted in a mixed verdict, and the district court issued a permanent injunction against some of HBI’s advertising practices.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found HBI liable under Illinois law for false advertising but not under the federal Lanham Act. The jury also found that OCB’s trade dress for its 99-cent promotional pack infringed RAW’s trade dress, but not the full-priced pack. Republic’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in responding to the jury’s question about the definition of “consumer” and in denying Republic’s motion for a new trial. The court also upheld the jury’s finding of trade dress infringement, noting that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction, rejecting HBI’s arguments that the injunction was vague, overbroad, and improperly applied nationwide. The court concluded that the injunction was appropriately tailored to provide complete relief to Republic. View "Republic Technologies (NA), LLC v BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP" on Justia Law

Dyson Technology, Ltd., a UK-based company, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against multiple e-commerce stores for selling counterfeit Dyson products. Dyson sought remedies under the Lanham Act, which allows trademark holders to recover profits, damages, and costs from infringing parties. The defendants did not appear in court, leading to a default judgment in Dyson's favor. However, the district court awarded only $1,000 in statutory damages and denied Dyson's request to recover the infringing sellers' profits, stating that Dyson had only provided evidence of revenue, not profits.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, handled the initial case. The court's decision to limit Dyson's award was based on its interpretation that revenue and profits are not the same, and it declined to assume that all revenue equaled profits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the Lanham Act. According to the Act, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to the defendant's profits, and the defendant bears the burden of proving any costs or deductions. The appellate court found that Dyson's evidence of revenue was sufficient to establish profits, as the defendants did not provide evidence to the contrary. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the district court to adjust the award if deemed just based on the case's circumstances. View "Dyson Technology Limited v David 7 Store" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sells personal care kits. Plaintiff’s products include a line of “Minimergency Kits,” which come in small fabric bags designed to look like men’s Dopp Kits (a now-cancelled trademark for travel kits, originally for men’s shaving gear, used widely by the military in World War II). Urban Aid also sells personal care kits. It agreed to create a custom kit for a shoe distributor, for use in a sales promotion. The distributor wanted the kits to come in a bag similar to plaintiff’s bag and gave Urban Aid a picture of plaintiff’s bag to work from. After the distributor began its sales promotion, plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the shape and design of its bag were protected trade dress, that Urban Aid’s bag violated the Lanham Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Urban Aid’s bag tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s prospective business relations. The district court found that plaintiff’s claimed trade dress was functional as a matter of law and granted Urban Aid summary judgment on the Lanham Act and the related state-law claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed; the undisputed evidence shows that the claimed design features affect product quality. View "Arlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Amazon, claiming that it permitted third parties to advertise counterfeit copies of books, Vagabond Natural and Vagabond Spiritual, that the plaintiff wrote and self‐published, detailing his experiences as a vagabond homeless man. He says Amazon refused repeated requests to remove the advertisements, although Amazon did eventually remove them. He insists that legitimate sales would have generated “millions of dollars for Amazon” and allowed him “to end homelessness,” but that Amazon “forcefully exploited” his books by counterfeiting them. He claims to have examined copies of each book purchased through Amazon by his cousin and determined that all were unauthorized reproductions because genuine copies would bear his fingernail indentations on the covers. The district judge dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the books at issue are hard copies, rather than online copies, and are almost certainly Hart’s self‐published books because they are identical to those books. Only six copies were sold by Amazon. There is no plausible allegation that, even if the books sold by Amazon are counterfeits, Amazon was aware of the fact. Counterfeiting cannot be presumed; Hart’s claims did not meet even a minimum standard of plausibility. View "Hart v. Amazon.com, Inc." on Justia Law

In the 1980s, a wilderness guide, Maine developed and bottled an all-natural bug repellant under the mark “BUG OFF.” She did not conduct trademark searches. Maine sold BUG OFF at craft fairs, by catalog and website, and at trade shows. From 1992-1998, she took orders for BUG OFF from every state. In 1994, Smith & Hawken began carrying BUG OFF in its catalog and stores. In 1998 Chervitz, who later assigned to Kaz, filed an application for the BUG OFF trademark, which was registered in 2000. In 1999, Kaz sold millions of BUG OFF wristbands. In 2002, Maine sought to register the BUG OFF mark. The PTO refused, based on the Chervitz-Kaz registrations; Maine did not then assert pre-dating rights. In 2003, S.C. Johnson filed an intent-to-use application for the BUG OFF mark. Maine’s attorney communicated that she had used the mark since at least 1992. The PTO refused S.C. Johnson’s application. In 2007 Kaz assigned its rights to S.C. Johnson. In 2010, S.C. Johnson began using the mark. In 2011 Maine sold to Nutraceutical; S.C. Johnson’s application advanced to registration. S.C. Johnson sued Nutraceutical. Afte the bench trial, S.C. Johnson asserted that Nutraceutical had not shown continuous use after 2012. The court found that while Nutraceutical had proved that it was the senior user and was using the mark nationally from 1995-1998 and continued sales through 2012, it did “not demonstrate continued sales after 2012, which constitutes non-use for more than one year.” The Seventh Circuit reversed. The district court abused its discretion in considering the post-trial argument. Trademark ownership is not acquired by registration, but from prior appropriation and actual use in the market. View "S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Nutraceutical Corp." on Justia Law

In 1984, Jesus Muhammad‐Ali painted a portrait of the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan. Ali later testified that his agreement with Farrakhan included only the portrait, not lithographs, and that Farrakhan never asked him to produce lithographs. In 2013, Ali sued Final Call, a newspaper that describes itself as the “propagation arm of the Nation of Islam,” for copyright infringement. Final Call admittedly had sold 115 copies of a lithograph of Ali’s Farrakhan portrait, but claimed it had authority to do so. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of Final Call. The law places the burden of proof on the party asserting license or authorization. Ali proved all he was required to prove, a prima facie case of infringement. A plaintiff is not required to prove that the defendant’s copying was unauthorized in order to state a prima facie case of copyright infringement. View "Ali v. Final Call, Inc." on Justia Law