An Omaha cocktail bar’s barber-shop theme attracted a licensing challenge. We examine the preliminary-injunction ruling and explain why a name, a barber pole, and themed décor deserve a closer First Amendment analysis.
The Miller–Heileman and Miller–Schlitz disputes examine generic beer terminology and the limits of trademark exclusivity. This retrospective explores why ordinary product descriptions matter to competing brewers.
The Fifth Circuit’s 2020 Brizzy–Vizzy ruling examines fizzy beverage names, packaging differences, and the evidence needed for a trademark injunction.
The 2020 Jack Daniel’s petition and industry amicus briefs frame the trademark and First Amendment dispute over the Bad Spaniels parody dog toy.
Heaven Hill’s domain dispute illustrates UDRP remedies, confusing similarity, legitimate interests, and bad faith in protecting beverage brands online.
Future Proof’s opening brief challenges the denial of a trademark injunction against Vizzy hard seltzer. Read the 2020 brief and record excerpts.
The Ninth Circuit’s 2020 lipstick-mark decision examines the overall marketplace presentation of Jim Beam and Johnny Love vodka branding.
A 2020 wine-trademark ruling examines descriptive use of “buttery,” disputed infringement claims, and public access to the litigation record.
This archived 2020 analysis examines the Ninth Circuit’s Bad Spaniels ruling on Jack Daniel’s trademarks, parody, dilution, and expressive works.
A March 2020 ruling examines the “izzy” suffix, fizzy beverages, and the likelihood of confusion between Brizzy and Vizzy hard seltzers.
A federal court considered whether a cannabis brand could rely on prior use of a mark in light of federal marijuana law.
The Brizzy maker’s 2020 complaint alleged that Molson Coors’ Vizzy hard seltzer name would confuse consumers. Read about the allegations.
