Trademark Disputes and What They Teach

Well-documented trademark cases, what actually happened in each, and the naming decision that caused it.

These pages are organised by the lesson each dispute settled rather than as a damages leaderboard. No reliable public ranking of trademark payouts exists — most significant matters settle confidentially, and large jury awards are frequently cut on appeal. Where a figure was publicly reported it is given, with a note on what stage it represents.

Adidas v. Payless ShoeSource2008 · A design element can be the trademark. Adidas did not own "stripes" in the abstr… Monster Energy v. Vital Pharmaceuticals (Bang)2022 · Lanham Act exposure is not limited to your name. How you describe your product s… Abitron Austria v. Hetronic International2023 · A US registration is a US right. If you sell abroad, you need registrations abro… Variety Stores v. Walmart2018 · Being much larger than the other party is not a defence, and a small regional re… Tiffany & Co. v. Costco2017 · "We meant it descriptively" is a real defence but a risky one to rely on in adva… Harley-Davidson v. SunFrog2018 · If your business model lets users apply artwork to products, you may own the inf… Gucci v. Guess2012 · The gap between what was demanded and what was awarded is the point. Litigation … Hermès v. Rothschild (MetaBirkins)2023 · Digital goods are goods. Calling a project art, or building it on a blockchain, … Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products2023 · Parody is not a free pass. If you are using someone else's brand as your own sou… Romag Fasteners v. Fossil2020 · Innocent infringement can still cost you profits. "We did not know they existed"… Starbucks v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee (Charbucks)2013 · Two things at once: a very large brand will pursue a very small one, and a small… Louis Vuitton v. My Other Bag2016 · Parody can succeed where the joke is clearly *about* the brand and nobody could … Polaroid v. Polarad Electronics1961 · Similarity of the names is only one factor among many. How close the goods are, … Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana1992 · Your restaurant's look and feel — layout, colour scheme, decor — can be protecte… Qualitex v. Jacobson Products1995 · Single colours can be owned in a given market. Before you build a brand around o… Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Brothers2000 · The shape of your product is harder to protect than your logo or packaging. If d… Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue2003 · Famous marks get protection beyond their own category, and the standard for reac… Matal v. Tam2017 · Registrability rules are not fixed. Both this decision and Iancu v. Brunetti rem… Iancu v. Brunetti2019 · The scandalousness bar is gone, but the other absolute bars — deceptiveness, gov… Kellogg v. National Biscuit1938 · A name that describes the product itself may be unownable, and a name can become… Coca-Cola v. Koke Co. of America1920 · Sound-alike names have been actionable for over a century. Changing the spelling… Apple Corps v. Apple Computer2007 · Coexistence agreements are contracts that bind your future. Apple Computer's ear… Booking.com v. USPTO2020 · A generic word plus a domain suffix is not automatically registrable — Booking.c… Deckers Outdoor v. Australian Leather2021 · Genericness is territorial. A term freely used in one country can be a strong re… Converse v. Skechers and others (Chuck Taylor trade dress)2018 · Even decades of use does not automatically secure trade dress. The evidence has … Levi Strauss v. Abercrombie & Fitch2011 · Small, repeated design details can be valuable registered property. In apparel e… Rolex and the counterfeit-goods judgmentsCounterfeiting carries statutory damages that need no proof of actual harm, plus… Nike v. StockX2022 · Reselling genuine goods is generally permitted, but creating new branded digital… Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around2024 · Reselling authentic goods is lawful; presenting yourself so that customers think… In-N-Out Burger v. Smashburger2019 · Owning a family of related marks strengthens your position against a new entrant…