In May, trademark law continued to serve as a critical tool for brand owners seeking to protect their intellectual property in an increasingly complex marketplace. From the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to courtroom battles, the focus remains on how brands are perceived, how they function, and how they are defended against potential threats.
The TTAB’s Clear Message: Use in Commerce Matters
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) delivered a strong message in In re Everwise Credit Union, a case that underscores the importance of actual use in commerce. The Board canceled the trademark for EVERWISE CREDIT UNION because the registrant failed to demonstrate that the mark was being used in the marketplace, not just in internal documents or press releases.
The decision highlights that a rebrand announcement is not sufficient to establish use in commerce. The Board emphasized that the mark must be functioning as a source identifier - something consumers encounter and recognize as coming from a specific source. A single specimen is not enough if the broader record shows minimal or token use.
For trademark practitioners, the takeaway is clear: do not file a statement of use until the mark is actually being used in the marketplace. Wait until the mark is recognized by consumers as a source identifier, not just a name in a press release.
Taylor Swift and the Battle Against AI Misuse
Trademark law is being used as part of a broader strategy to combat AI misuse, and Taylor Swift’s recent filings exemplify this trend. On April 24, TAS Rights Management filed three trademark applications with the USPTO: two for sound marks based on Swift’s voice and one for a visual mark featuring her signature performance look.
This approach reflects a growing awareness that traditional copyright and publicity rights may not be sufficient to address AI-generated content that mimics a person’s voice or image. The intersection of trademark law and AI offers a federal avenue, but only if the claimed voice or image actually functions as a source identifier.
For companies developing AI-facing brand protection strategies, the Swift filings provide a useful model. Start with what your audience already recognizes as a source identifier. Build a record showing that recognition, and then file.
Dua Lipa v. Samsung: When Packaging Becomes a False Endorsement
Dua Lipa’s lawsuit against Samsung is a compelling example of how brand identity can be misused in unexpected ways. The singer alleges that Samsung used her photograph on TV packaging without permission, seeking at least $15 million in damages. The case involves claims of copyright infringement, publicity rights violations, and a false endorsement theory under the Lanham Act.
The false endorsement theory is particularly noteworthy. Unlike a registration-based trademark claim, it does not require a registered mark. Instead, it focuses on whether the use of a person’s identity creates a false impression of sponsorship, affiliation, or approval. A celebrity’s image on retail packaging can easily be perceived as an endorsement, even if no formal license was ever intended.
This case underscores that image clearance is not just a copyright issue. Even if vendors assure you of rights, the final use must not look like an endorsement. Review your packaging and promotional materials with both copyright and false endorsement exposure in mind.
Buc-ee’s v. Teddy’s Market: The Battle for Trade Dress
Buc-ee’s filed a lawsuit against Teddy’s Market in Georgia, alleging that the competitor copied its overall brand identity. The dispute centers on a smiling animal mascot, a consistent visual style, and a roadside presence designed to attract highway travelers. Buc-ee’s also seeks to block Teddy’s pending trademark application.
This case is not just about a logo. It is about the total commercial impression created by a brand. Buc-ee’s is framing the dispute around the cumulative effect of its mascot design, store environment, roadside visibility, and geographic expansion path. This is a classic trade dress theory, which is more difficult to defend against than a simple mark-versus-mark comparison.
For brands with physical locations, the lesson is clear: trade dress lives in the details. Document the choices that make your locations recognizable. That documentation becomes your evidence if a competitor starts making similar choices.
In May’s trademark stories, the common thread is the need for solid evidence. Evidence of permission. Evidence of source identification. Evidence of real use. Evidence that your brand controls its own ecosystem.