Issue No. 037
August 5, 2026
New York
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The IP Briefing · by ESCA Legal
|
|
|
|
| The Ninth Circuit reversed an injunction against VIP Products and directed the trial court to enter judgment for the maker of the Bad Spaniels dog toy in its long-running trademark fight with Jack Daniel's. |
| § | The toy spoofs the shape and labeling of a Jack Daniel's bottle with dog-themed references and bathroom humor. | | § | The panel held that the toy's name and trade dress did not facially portray the whiskey brand's marks in a context likely to tarnish their reputation. | | § | The court found Jack Daniel's evidence too general because its expert did not study the Bad Spaniels toy specifically. | | § | The panel remanded with instructions to enter judgment for VIP Products, which could allow the toy to return to market. |
|
| Continue reading → |
| § ESCA Takeaway |
| Familiar brands are testing different boundaries of control. One appellate court rejected a tarnishment theory against parody, while two new motions ask courts to restrict alleged misuse of brand identity and confidential product information. |
|
|
| More IP Stories |
|
| § Trademark · Filed |
|
|
| Buc-ee's filed a federal trademark lawsuit against Beaver's Mini Mart in Beavercreek, Ohio, alleging that the local store's cartoon beaver mascot is too similar to its own branding. |
| § | The complaint points to wide eyes, a smile, and red as a predominant color in both beaver mascots. | | § | Buc-ee's alleges that the similarities could confuse consumers now that its first Ohio location operates about 16 miles away. | | § | Beaver's Mini Mart has operated in the community for decades and has said it plans to fight the lawsuit. | | § | The complaint starts a separate case from Buc-ee's earlier Ohio dispute involving Mickey's and its moose mascot. |
|
|
Why it matters
The filing puts geographic expansion, long-standing local use, and animal-mascot similarity into one consumer-brand dispute. It also adds a new defendant and a new mark to Buc-ee's broader enforcement record.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
| § Copyright · Update |
|
|
| A federal judge found the defendants in a copyright case over Tracy Wolff's Crave novels entitled to attorney fees and ordered plaintiff Lynne Freeman to post a $150,000 bond to continue her appeal. |
| § | The court dismissed Freeman's infringement claims in March after finding no substantial similarity between her unpublished drafts and the first four Crave novels. | | § | The new ruling called the claim objectively unreasonable and found that the works could have been compared much earlier in the litigation. | | § | The defendants requested about $3.4 million in fees, but the court signaled that the final award will be reduced. | | § | Freeman has appealed the dismissal and has filed additional cases involving later books and retailers that sold the series. |
|
|
Why it matters
The ruling connects work-by-work similarity review with the financial consequences of continuing a copyright case. It also shows how fee awards and appeal bonds can shape litigation after dismissal.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
| § Trade Secret · Filed |
|
|
| Apple asked a federal court for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery in its trade secret lawsuit against OpenAI, io, and two former Apple employees. |
| § | Apple seeks to restrict access, use, and disclosure of information it identifies as confidential product and hardware material. | | § | The company also wants early document production and depositions as it investigates whether additional former employees were involved. | | § | Apple alleges that some former employees retained work devices or accessed confidential material before joining OpenAI. | | § | OpenAI denies possessing or wanting Apple's trade secrets and disputes the factual basis for the requested injunction. |
|
|
Why it matters
The motion moves the dispute from allegations in a complaint to a request for immediate court restrictions. It places employee mobility, hardware development, forensic access, and trade secret controls at the center of a high-profile product race.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not subscribed? Sign up for future editions of Marked by ESCA Legal.
|
|
|
|
This newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Published by ESCA Legal. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising; prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
|