This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion came in a case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. One of the nonprecedential opinions came in a patent infringement and false advertising case appealed from the District of Utah, and the other nonprecedential opinion came in a case appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Intrastate Distributors, Inc. (Precedential)
Sunkist Growers, Inc. (“Sunkist”) appeals from a decision of the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) dismissing Sunkist’s opposition to Intrastate Distributors, Inc.’s (“IDI”) applications to register the mark KIST in standard characters and the stylized mark kist for soft drinks. Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Intrastate Distribs., Inc., No. 91254647, 2023 WL 6442602 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2023) (“Decision”). The Board found no likelihood of confusion between IDI’s marks and Sunkist’s registered SUNKIST marks. Id. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
SME Steel Contractors, Inc. v. Seismic Bracing Co. (Nonprecedential)
SME Steel Contractors, Inc. and its sister company Core-Brace, LLC (collectively, “SME Steel”) brought claims of patent infringement, false advertising and false association under the Lanham Act, unfair competition and certain deceptive trade practices under Utah state law, and copyright infringement against Seismic Bracing Co., LLC and Andrew Hinchman (collectively, “Seismic Bracing”). The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted summary judgment to Seismic Bracing. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Williams Building Co. v. Secretary of State (Nonprecedential)
Williams Building Company, Inc. (“Williams”) appeals from the decision of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“the Board”) that granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of State’s Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (“OBO”) on all three counts of its appeal to the Board. Williams Bldg. Co. v. Dep’t of State, CBCA 23-1 B.C.A. ¶ 38328, 2023 WL 3144494 (Apr. 26, 2023) (“Decision”), J.A. 1–33. For Count I and most of Count II, the Board determined that prior bilateral contract modifications and releases barred recovery. For the remainder of Count II and Count III, the Board determined that Williams could not prove damages. For the following reasons, we affirm.