The year 2025 has seen significant trademark decisions that have captured the attention of the legal community. These rulings shape the landscape of trademark law, including the limits of corporate liability, the status of profane trademarks, the trademarkability of NFTs, and the handling of widespread counterfeit cases.
In a notable decision, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a substantial trademark infringement award in Dewberry Group Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., overturning a prior ruling that imposed a nearly $47 million liability on affiliates of a real estate development company not named in the lawsuit. Justice Elena Kagan emphasized that profits could only be awarded from the defendant itself, a stance that Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurrence supported by suggesting traditional means like piercing the corporate veil remain viable in relevant contexts (Law360).
The Federal Circuit delivered another pivotal decision in In re: Brunetti, taking issue with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s reasoning when rejecting an application to register the F-word. This decision reflects ongoing confusion regarding the failure-to-function standard, indicating that attorneys must provide robust evidence demonstrating the consumer perception of trademarks as source identifiers (Law360).
For the first time, the Ninth Circuit recognized nonfungible tokens (NFTs) as trademarkable goods in the context of the Bored Ape Yacht Club dispute in Yuga Labs Inc. v. Ryder Ripps et al.. The decision underscores limitations to the Rogers test, which restricts First Amendment exceptions when using established trademarks in potentially infringing contexts, as apparent from the ruling influenced by the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (Law360).
Another key Ninth Circuit ruling in Jaime Rogozinski v. Reddit Inc. highlighted the intricacies of trademark ownership within social media platforms. The court affirmed Reddit’s right over the WallStreetBets trademark, dismissing claims from the forum’s creator, who argued for ownership due to early usage. This ruling reflects the fundamental requirement of commercial use in establishing trademark rights (Law360).
A significant district court development arose when a Chicago judge paused the prevailing usage of “Schedule A” cases. These proceedings, central to counterfeiting litigation, were critiqued for lacking due process and transparency. Judge John F. Kness’ reassessment aims to balance effective anti-counterfeiting measures with fundamental procedural fairness (Law360).
These decisions collectively indicate a dynamic year in trademark jurisprudence, reflecting ongoing challenges and adaptations within the realm of intellectual property law across various industries and emerging technologies.
For the original article, visit the Law360 article.