{"id":1497,"date":"2017-12-13T12:38:06","date_gmt":"2017-12-13T20:38:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wirtzlawstg.wpengine.com\/?p=1497"},"modified":"2021-11-17T10:21:39","modified_gmt":"2021-11-17T15:21:39","slug":"wirtz-law-apc-tiene-la-4a-decision-sobre-marcas-mas-importante-de-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wirtz-law-apc-has-4th-most-important-trademark-decision-of-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Wirtz Law APC tiene la cuarta decisi\u00f3n de marca m\u00e1s importante de 2017"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Top 10 Trademark Rulings Of 2017 (modified from original<\/a>)<\/h2>\n

By\u00a0Bill Donahue<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Law360, New York (December 12, 2017, 4:45 PM EST) — From Cheerios box trade dress to generic \u201cgoogling\u201d to a blockbuster U.S. Supreme Court decision, 2017 was another bumper year for major rulings in trademark law. Here are the 10 you need to remember.<\/p>\n

10. In re\u00a0General Mills IP Holdings II LLC<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

9. Deere & Co<\/a>. v. FIMCO Inc.<\/strong><\/p>\n

8. Twentieth Century Fox Television<\/a>\u00a0et al. v. Empire Distribution Inc.<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. Allstate Insurance Co<\/a>. v.\u00a0Kia Motors America Inc<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. Black & Decker Corp<\/a>. et al. v. Positec USA Inc.<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. Booking.com BV<\/a>\u00a0v. Matal<\/strong><\/p>\n

4. Elliott et al. v. Google<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit\u2019s\u00a0May ruling<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0shot down a case that aimed to prove \u201cgoogle\u201d had become a generic verb that cannot be protected by trademark law.<\/p>\n

Two plaintiffs, Chris Gillespie and David Elliott, claimed Google had become \u201ca generic term universally used to describe the act of internet searching,\u201d but Ninth Circuit ruled that the argument ignored one key thing: A claim of genericide must relate to a particular type of product or service, not simply to the word itself.<\/p>\n

The proper question, then, was not whether \u201cgoogle\u201d had become a generic term for the \u201cact\u201d of searching, but instead whether it had become a generic name consumers use for internet search engines.<\/p>\n

\u201c[The case] has failed to present sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the relevant public primarily understands the word \u2018google\u2019 as a generic name for internet search engines and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular,\u201d U.S. Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman wrote for a three-judge panel.<\/p>\n

Gillespie and Elliott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to offer \u201cclarity\u201d on the trademark implications of the \u201cincreasingly common\u201d use of brand names as verbs, but the high court denied certiorari in October.<\/p>\n

The case is David Elliott et al. v. Google, case number\u00a015-15809<\/a>, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n

3. Tiffany & Co. v.\u00a0Costco\u00a0<\/a>Wholesale Corp.<\/strong><\/p>\n

2. NantKwest Inc. v. Matal<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Matal v. Tam<\/strong><\/p>\n

–[original] Editing by Mark Lebetkin and Jill Coffey.<\/p>\n

For more information call the experienced trial attorneys at (858) 259-5009 for a free case evaluation.<\/em><\/p>\n

Disclaimer<\/u>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>The information provided in this advertisement is for informational and educational purposes only regarding aspects of trademark law. It is intended for California residents only. This presentation is considered an advertisement by attorney Richard M. Wirtz and Wirtz Law APC. You should not rely on any of the information provided in this advertisement and no legal advice is given by the advertisement. No attorney client relationship is established by viewing this advertisement. A written signed engagement agreement between you and Wirtz Law APC is required to create an attorney client relationship. You should immediately consult an attorney which is experienced in trademark law. Attorney Richard M. Wirtz is responsible for the content of this post.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Las 10 sentencias de marcas m\u00e1s importantes de 2017 (modificado del original) Por Bill Donahue Law360, Nueva York (12 de diciembre de 2017, 16:45 h EST) - Desde la imagen comercial de la caja de Cheerios hasta el gen\u00e9rico \"googlear\", pasando por una decisi\u00f3n trascendental del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos, 2017 fue otro a\u00f1o de grandes sentencias en el derecho de marcas. Estas son las 10...<\/p>","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-trademark-infringement"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1497"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wirtzlaw.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}