Trademark Tacking: Supreme Court Guidance

January 23, 2015

On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first trademark decision in over a decade. In Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 574 U.S. — (Jan. 21, 2015), the Court examined the trademark doctrine of "tacking" – a doctrine that can have profound effects on trademark priority.

In the United States, a party's rights in a trademark are established when that party first uses the mark in commerce; the party that first uses the mark has priority over, and thus rights superior to, subsequent users of the mark. The doctrine of tacking allows a user to "clothe a new mark with the priority position of an older mark" when the new mark and older mark "create the same, continuing commercial impression" in the minds of consumers.

The Case

Hana Financial involved a dispute over the priority of certain marks that incorporated the term "Hana." In 1994, a Korean entity, Hana Bank, began advertising its financial services using the name "Hana Overseas Korean Club." In 2002, Hana Bank began operating a bank in the United States under the name "Hana Bank." In the interim, a California entity, Hana Financial, began using the mark "Hana Financial" in 1995 and obtained a federal registration for its mark for use in connection with financial services in 1996. In 2007, Hana Financial, relying on its federal registration, sued Hana Bank for trademark infringement. Hana Bank denied infringement by invoking the tacking doctrine and claiming priority.

In the District Court, the infringement claim was tried before a jury, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hana Bank (presumably finding Hana Bank's use of "Hana Bank" tacked on to its earlier use of "Hana Overseas Korean Club"). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the use of tacking by the jury. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on whether tacking is an issue of fact that should be resolved by a jury.

The Decision

The Supreme Court unanimously held that "when a jury trial has been requested and when the facts do not warrant entry of summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law, the question whether tacking is warranted must be decided by a jury." The Court rejected Hana Financial's arguments that such a holding would lead to inconsistent precedent and unpredictable results in the trademark context. In so holding, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split that has persisted for the last few decades.

Its Impact

The implications of this decision could be significant. Although the Supreme Court went to great lengths to limit the scope of its decision, the decision might ultimately increase the costs of trademark litigation by placing the tacking issue within the purview of the jury, while making it easier for a party to assert the tacking doctrine as a defense to infringement. Individuals or businesses facing issues of trademark infringement should consult with an experienced attorney to discuss how best to navigate the complex factual issues involved in the establishment of priority.

At Lewis Rice, we recognize that intellectual property rights are a key component to our clients' potential and worth, whether they are large or small companies, universities, or individuals. Attorneys in our intellectual property practice are extremely supportive of their clients and are accessible from around the world.

Firm Highlights
Client Alert

Colorado Joins the Bandwagon, Enacts Comprehensive Privacy Law

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast Hosts Ronald A. Norwood to Discuss Mentorship, Diversity & Inclusion in the Legal Industry, and the Importance of Equity for All

More
News

Michael D. Mulligan, Mysun Charitable Foundation Recognized at Greensfelder Park Ribbon Cutting Ceremony

More
Client Alert

EEOC Issues Updated Guidance on COVID Vaccination Policies

More
Client Alert

The Changing Workplace Following the Latest CDC Mask Guidance

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Lewis Rice Launches “Next Level” Diversity and Inclusion Programs

More
News

A Lawyer’s Guide to the Galaxy Podcast Named Among Best Copyright Law Podcasts for 2021 by Welp Magazine

More
Client Alert

Missouri Supreme Court Holds that Public Governmental Bodies May Not Charge for Attorney Review Time

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Limits Ability to Compel Access to Private Property Without Compensation

More
News

Jeremy P. Brummond Presents at Webinar for Experienced Construction Attorneys

More
News

Jeannine Moentmann Becomes President of St. Louis Paralegal Association for 2021-2022

More
Client Alert

First-Issued Interim Final Rule Gives Guidance on No Surprises Act

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Hands Down Unanimous Decision Limiting FTC’s Ability to Seek Monetary Relief

More
Client Alert

Missouri Supreme Court Reverses Overtime Wages Judgment Resulting from Employer-Mandated Screenings Under the Portal-to-Portal Act

More
News

Claims Filed for Compensation in North Carolina Ecusta Trail Rail-to-Trail Case

More
Client Alert

FTC Adds Teeth to the ‘Made in USA’ Rule

More
Client Alert

CROWN Act Legislation on the Verge of Passage in St. Louis City & County

More
News

Lewis Rice Welcomes 2021 Summer Associates

More
Client Alert

DOL Publishes Cybersecurity Guidance for Benefits Plans

More
Client Alert

The New Standard Contractual Clauses: Scope, Impact, and Next Steps

More