The U.S. Supreme Court is set to commence its term on October 6. Among the cases it will review are several appeals concerning copyright and trademark law. One notable case seeks to address procedural inconsistencies and claims of unconstitutional vagueness attributed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In August, the Federal Circuit issued a surprisingly self-critical ruling in the long-standing dispute between Erik Brunetti and the USPTO over Brunetti’s efforts to register the term F*CK for a wide variety of goods and services. The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board’s decision in In re Brunett lacked sufficient clarity and therefore vacated it for further proceedings, which although facially unremarkable, may not only prove to be a boon to Brunetti, it may also be highly beneficial to many trademark owners who have been forced to wrestle with failure-to-function refusals.
As AI becomes more sophisticated at detecting fakes, it is not just changing how brands protect themselves — it has the potential to change the legal framework for determining when platforms themselves might be held responsible for the counterfeits sold on their sites.
For companies developing novelty products, advertising campaigns, or brand-related parodies, this case underscores the importance of reviewing both confusion and reputational risks. For rights holders, it affirms that parody is not a license to defame a brand.
A trademark battle that pitted technology giant OpenAI against a company known as Open AI (note the space between the terms) has resulted in a summary judgment that has ordered the smaller enterprise to cease use of the name and its prized internet real estate, open.ai.
Protectable rights are created the same way a successful brand is established — linking your Mark and your company’s offering in the minds of the consumer is a must. The good news? Regardless of your company’s size or marketing budget, this necessary connection can be achieved.
“Not Merely Monkey Business”: The Bored Ape Case and NFT Branding in the Ninth Circuit
In brand protection, as in bridge engineering, the strength of brand differentiation (trademark distinctiveness) depends on the integrity of each supporting cable. When one snaps, the question is not only whether you can fix that component, but also whether the whole structure will hold together long enough for the repair crew to arrive.
On April 8, a California jury found that R.C. Bigelow, Inc., the well-known manufacturer of Bigelow teas, intentionally or recklessly misled consumers by claiming that some of its teabags were “Manufactured in the USA.” The price for this mislabeling was steep, with the jury awarding the class action plaintiffs $2.36 million.
Today, building brands solely on the promise of a different product or service has become unsustainable. Any “new and improved” feature or benefit is quickly eclipsed by competitors. Consequently, brands signal category superiority not through rational claims, but by reinforcing a distinct persona — a “ness” comprised of distinguishing traits and behaviors that form an ownable brand essence difficult for competitors to replicate.
© Copyright 2026 ALM Global, LLC trading as Centellic.
Advertise with Us Customer Support Terms of Service Privacy Policy
