Hunton Retail Law Resource

In our client alert, A Brief Explanation of the USPTO’s Useful New AI-Assisted Invention Guidance, we discuss the Inventorship Guidance for AI-assisted Inventions, 89 Fed. Reg. 10043 (Feb. 13, 2024), recently released by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The guidance provides inventors and patent applicants with a framework regarding AI-assisted inventions and how inventorship of such will be judged at the USPTO. Why should a retailer care?

Our 2023 Retail Industry Year in Review provides a comprehensive overview of recent developments, issues, and trends impacting retailers, as well as a look ahead at what to expect in 2024. We hope you will take a few minutes to review our new publication released last week.

Continue Reading

A longer version of this blog post originally appeared as an article in Retail TouchPoints: Policing Your Brand on Online Marketplaces: an Intellectual Property Guide for Retailers. Further duplication is not permitted.

Retailers often face brand policing challenges on online resale platforms such as Wayfair, Overstock.com, and eBay. Resellers account for a significant portion of retail sales on these websites. Resellers tend to be small to midsize entities but are nevertheless able to reach a large number of US consumers. It’s thus unsurprising that problems arise daily, often relating to brand owners’ dissatisfaction with the third-party resellers and their sales practices.

Branding is central to the sale of products and services for many retailers. In a case involving a whiskey bottle dog toy with important findings for retailers and brand protection, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s rulings on trademark infringement and trademark dilution in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC.

Counterfeit goods continue to become increasingly ubiquitous, presenting a host of issues for both retailers and consumers. In addition to a variety of legal consequences and the sometimes massive effect on companies’ bottom lines, counterfeit and pirated goods are often accompanied by risks to public health and safety and even national security.

In a significant change to the European patent system that will impact patent prosecution and enforcement strategies in one of the world’s largest retail markets, the European Unified Patent Court (UPC) begins operations and the European Patent with Unitary Effect (Unitary Patent) will be available at the European Patent Office (EPO) on June 1, 2023. Early requests for Unitary Patent protection on applications that may grant prior to June 1 can be filed starting March 1.

Trade dress is a sub-category of trademarks traditionally reserved for product packaging. However, it can also include product design itself if the design elements claimed are distinctive and allow the consumer to recognize a single source as the producer or seller of the goods. Well known product design cases include high heels with contrasting red soles[1], iconic electric guitar shapes[2], and the green color of night-time cold medicines.[3]

The metaverse is a new way to engage with computers through artificial intelligence (AI), widespread connectivity, augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). Instead of interacting with a two-dimensional application or website via screen and keyboard, the metaverse adds a figurative “third dimension” for users to explore in an intuitive, realistic manner. The metaverse is also an opportunity for a new digital economy. Users can buy and sell goods, services, and property, and even attend events virtually. Like the Internet before it, the metaverse is expected to lay a foundation for the creation of business, art, and technology.

In a recent case, Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, No. 2019-2164 (May 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit found that, sometimes, threatening a patent infringement action, or entering extensive patent license negotiations prior to filing suit, with a company having a presence in a particular state could subject you to jurisdiction in that state, even if you are located elsewhere.

Signed into law on December 27, 2020, the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA) provides amendments to existing federal trademark law that will assist US retailers and other businesses with branding decisions. Congress passed the TMA as part of the COVID-19 relief and government-funding bill.

Nestled midway between Dallas and Austin, Waco, Texas, with a population of around 144,000, is home to the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame and Museum, the Dr. Pepper Museum, Baylor University, and Chip and Joanna Gaines’ Magnolia Market; and it now has one of the busiest courts in the nation for patent infringement cases. Waco is part of the Western District of Texas (WDTX), which covers 92,000 square miles, including San Antonio, Austin, Del Rio, El Paso, Midland, and Pecos. For retailers, this vast footprint means they may have a physical presence in the Western District and thus, potentially be a target for a patent infringement case in Waco.

Your product development team spent years designing a product, working out every design detail until it is just right. Your company spent significant time and money marketing the product, shoring up a great reputation for the product and the company that stands behind it. Then, a copycat comes along with a knockoff and starts selling a product that looks eerily similar—or even identical—to yours. When your customers search online for your long-developed and lauded product, the knockoff appears, and at a fraction of the price. You are certainly surprised, and likely dismayed.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court held in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com that "generic.com" marks may be registered trademarks or service marks when consumers do not perceive them as generic.

3M Company (3M) is a leading manufacturer of N95 respirators. According to 3M, medical workers and public-health professionals consider 3M-branded N95 respirators to be “the gold standard.”

Trade dress, which includes the total look of a product (size, shape, color) is registrable as a trademark if, like a trademark, it identifies the source of a product. Thanks to a recent decision, In re Forney Industries Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1073, by the US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit), it may now be easier for businesses to obtain federal trademark registration for some color-based product packaging trade dress.

Trademarks allow businesses to protect brand names and logos used on their goods and/or services. Unlike other IP, rights in a registered trademark can last indefinitely as long as the mark is in continuous use and all the required maintenance documents are filed. Failure to file such documents results in the cancellation of the trademark registration. Once canceled, the mark can still be re-applied for by the original owner and, in certain instances, another enterprising business. Specifically, assuming the mark has been legally abandoned, the other enterprising business can file its own trademark registration application for the mark.

As publicly traded retailers begin to prepare their annual reports and 2020 proxy statements, they should keep in mind a number of new and amended SEC disclosure items. As detailed in our recent client alert, hot topics for proxy statements include hedging policy disclosure, board diversity disclosure and overboarding of directors.  In annual reports on Form 10-K, public retailers must consider new cover page requirements; new disclosure rules for material property, management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) and exhibit filings; and most retailers will now disclose ...

Innovation and developments in technology bring both opportunities and challenges for the retail industry, and Hunton Andrews Kurth has a sophisticated understanding of these issues and how they affect retailers. On January 23, 2020, our cross-disciplinary retail team, composed of over 200 lawyers, released our annual Retail Industry Year in Review. The 2019 edition, Spotlight on Technology, provides an overview and analysis of recent developments impacting retailers, as well as what to expect in 2020 and beyond. Topics discussed include: braille gift cards as the next wave of ...

Earlier this month, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill—the Counterfeit Goods Seizure Act of 2019—to expand the authority of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to seize counterfeit goods that infringe intellectual property rights, specifically design patents, at the border. The senators expect the legislation, if passed, to help stem the tide of counterfeits (with a global trade value estimated at over $1 trillion) by preventing their importation into the US.

Office workers everywhere are familiar with height-adjustable desks. These desks allow workers to raise or lower their work surfaces, and often workers will use a height-adjustable desk to perform tasks while standing instead of sitting. As awareness of the negative health effects of sedentary lifestyles grows, height-adjustable desks have become a common solution to avoid long periods of sitting at work.

Design patents can be a useful way to complement an IP portfolio because they can protect the way a product looks instead of how it works. Many consumer products can be defined this way, either in conjunction with, or even in lieu of, utility patents. Where utility patents cover a technical innovation, design patents must claim “ornamental” designs and cannot cover a “primarily functional” design that is essential to the use of the covered product.

Anyone who uses a mobile device knows there are times when hands-free is a necessity. Enter National Products, Inc., a US maker of RAM® Mounts for securely mounting electronic devices—including phones, tablets, laptops and radar detectors—in cars, trucks, bikes and boats, among other vehicles.

Social media can be a minefield of intellectual property issues. The hashtag, for example, began as a searching tool, but now has evolved into its own form of communication. And if a hashtag can include a trademark or otherwise represent a brand, when can you use someone else’s trademark in a hashtag?

Recently, in Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology LLC, the Supreme Court held that a trademark licensee may continue using a licensed trademark after its licensor files for bankruptcy and rejects the relevant license agreement. While a debtor-licensor may “reject” a trademark license agreement under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, such rejection is only a breach of the agreement and does not allow the licensor to revoke the licensee’s rights.

Click here to read the full alert.

A federal court in Pennsylvania has held that Liberty Mutual must defend its insured, Hershey Creamery Company, in an intellectual property infringement lawsuit because the suit raises claims that potentially implicate coverage under the policies’ personal and advertising injury coverages. The court further found that the alleged wrongful conduct was not subject to the policies’ IP infringement exclusion.

Nautilus Inc., which owns exercise brands like Nautilus and Bowflex, and ICON Health & Fitness, which owns NordicTrack among other exercise brands, have been battling over intellectual property for years. ICON recently upped the ante by bringing a complaint to the International Trade Commission, seeking to exclude all imported Bowflex exercise machines from entry into the United States.

While footwear may not appear to be fertile ground for new inventions, many shoe makers have been granted patent protection for the technologies that go into their products. Sometimes, those inventions are rolled out with little fanfare. Others are, literally, flashy.

On January 17, 2019, Hunton Andrews Kurth’s retail industry team, composed of more than 200 lawyers across practices, released their annual Retail Industry Year in Review publication.

The 2018 Retail Industry Year in Review includes many topics of interest to retailers, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI), ITC investigations, product recall insurance, antitrust enforcement in the Trump Administration, the collection and storage of biometric data, consumer privacy, SEC and M&A activity in 2018, the #MeToo movement and the impact of cashierless stores.

The Ninth Circuit will decide whether Great Lakes Reinsurance must defend clothing company, In and Out, against a trademark infringement suit by Forever 21. The dispute focuses on exclusionary language in the general liability policy issued by Great Lakes to In and Out, which broadly bars coverage for claims stemming from violations of intellectual property rights, but which also excepts from the exclusion claims for copyright, trade dress and slogan infringement occurring in the company's advertisements. The appeal concerns last year’s ruling by a California federal judge that Great Lakes owed a defense because the underlying complaint raised a potential that In and Out’s advertising infringed Forever 21’s trade dress.

In May, Hunton & Williams is pleased to host in-person forums in its Charlotte and Dallas offices, bringing together industry experts in technology and procurement to discuss some of the most pressing legal and business issues facing customers in this space. These forums are hosted with the support of ISG. Our program topics include software audits and contract lifecycle management. These forums are designed to provide an in-depth understanding of these issues, as well as key practical and legal principles to apply on a routine basis.

As the retail industry continues to invest in and leverage new automation technologies to meet organizational efficiency and cost reduction goals, a growing number of retailers are looking to robots, or more specifically, service delivery automation or robotic process automation (“RPA”), as a solution. What is RPA? In the abstract, RPA is the substitution of human workers with automation. In the real world, according to the Institute for Robotic Process Automation, that translates to software robots that capture and interpret data from existing applications to process transactions, manipulate data, trigger responses and communicate with other digital systems. RPA doesn’t mean that robots will soon be sitting in a cubicle in accounting...at least not yet.

On June 14, 2016, two lawyers in Hunton’s Insurance Coverage Counseling and Litigation practice, Syed Ahmad and Jennifer White, published an article in Risk Management Magazine about how commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies may help policyholders looking to recover attorney’s fees or fund settlements in trademark infringement litigation. Historically, CGL policies were the wrong place to look for coverage, and insurers raised often successful defenses to covering such trademark infringement cases under CGL policies. Or, policyholders would avoid CGL ...

On April 21, 2016, Hunton & Williams LLP announced the launch of a cross-practice 3D printing team to advise clients as they explore this revolutionary technology. Also known as additive manufacturing, 3D printing is being adopted by manufacturers in many industries, including consumer products, aviation, energy, medical, prosthetic and transportation, and is becoming integrated into the production process.

There is general consensus that 3D printing has potentially revolutionary implications for industry and, along with it, for the law. Its consequences for consumers injured by 3D-printed products are potentially just as far-reaching.

Consider this fact pattern: A plumbing parts manufacturer makes CAD files available to plumbing stores so that they may 3D print replacement parts on demand and on-site in response to customer requests. A plumbing store sells such a 3D-printed part to a customer, but the part malfunctions, causing significant damage to the customer’s home.

In this fact pattern, the injured consumer may have recourse against the plumbing parts manufacturer and the plumbing store, although the manufacturer and store are likely to have agreements with indemnification and liability provisions.

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a much-anticipated opinion regarding the constitutionality of the prohibition against “disparaging” trademarks. In an 9-3 en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit held that the exclusion of disparaging trademarks under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment.

Many of the marks rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of stigmatized communities. But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech …. The  government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive  messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others.

The en banc US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion today in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag, et al. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, et al., Case No. 2013-1564. In a 6-5 decision, the court reaffirmed that laches is a defense to a suit for damages for patent infringement. In reaching this decision, the Federal Circuit distinguished Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), in which the US Supreme Court held that laches is not a defense to a suit for damages under the Copyright Act.

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, No. 13-720 (June 22, 2015), upheld the longstanding precedent provided by Brulotte v. Thys Co, 379 U.S. 29 (1964), which stated that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” Id. at 32. Justice Kagan, writing the opinion of the Court, stated that stare decisis requires the Court to adhere to the decision in Brulotte.

Read the full client alert.

This week, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision addressing two important patent damages issues: the entire market value rule and the proper application of the Nash Bargaining Solution in VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-1489 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2014). In vacating a $386 million damages award against defendant Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit first resolved conflicting treatment of the application of the entire market value rule (EMV) by the district courts in cases where the smallest saleable unit is the entire accused device ...

The Eighth Circuit recently issued an opinion in the Interstate Bakeries Corporation bankruptcy case reversing its previous holding that a perpetual royalty-free trademark license constituted an executory contract that could be assumed or rejected in bankruptcy.  The Eighth Circuit, in a rehearing en banc on its earlier decision in Interstate III2, determined that the contract at issue should be considered part of an integrated agreement with another contemporaneously executed deal. When the Eighth Circuit expanded the parameters of the contract being considered, it ...

The Supreme Court during its 2013–14 term decided on six patent cases, the last on June 19, 2014. These cases will have significant consequences for companies as they work to advance their strategy for protecting their intellectual property. The attached client alert provides highlights of each case.

Read the full client alert.