Adidas Suffers Defeat in Trademark Dispute against Church
In a recent court ruling, Russia's state-owned company, Sojuzplodoimport (Союзплодоимпорт), has successfully defended its ownership of the Stoli and Stolichnaya trademarks in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This case does not seem to be related to the Russia-Stoli trademark legal battle mentioned in an earlier bullet point.
The case did not take place in a court in the United States, unlike some previous disputes involving trademark rights. Instead, it was heard in a court in the Netherlands.
The Federal Circuit, which has been instrumental in several trademark-related cases in the U.S., did not play a role in this particular legal battle. Similarly, the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and the Christian Faith and Fellowship Church, who have been parties in other trademark disputes, were not involved in this case.
The case did not revolve around arguments about the location of a church near the Illinois-Wisconsin border or the concept of a de minimus exception in the Lanham Act, as discussed in previous bullet points.
In the world of trademarks, non-use is a common ground for cancellation. If a trademark is not actively used in the ordinary course of trade for three consecutive years, it constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment, shifting the burden to the trademark owner to prove continued use or intent to resume use. However, minimal, symbolic, or technical use made solely to maintain registration will not satisfy the use requirement.
In this case, the opposing party, SPI Group (Spirits International), had initially cancelled the church's trademarks due to non-use, as the church had only sold two hats locally. The church argued that selling two hats counts as interstate commerce due to its location near the Illinois-Wisconsin border.
However, the Federal Circuit ruled that even a small sale should count as "use in commerce" because there is no de minimus exception in the Lanham Act that defines the "use in commerce" requirement. Courts and the TTAB require genuine, continuous commercial use, not de minimis or symbolic acts.
In the case of Sojuzplodoimport, it appears that the company has demonstrated such genuine, continuous commercial use of the Stoli and Stolichnaya trademarks, thus securing its rightful ownership in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
References: [1][2][3]
- The Sojuzplodoimport case, contrary to some business disputes, did not occur in a court in the United States, but rather in a court in the Netherlands.
- In the field of business and finance, consistent and ongoing commercial use of a trademark, such as the Stoli and Stolichnaya trademarks by Sojuzplodoimport, is essential to maintain its ownership rights, unlike cases involving non-use and the de minimis exception.
