InTiger Lily Ventures Ltd. v. Barclays Capital Inc., Nos. 2021-1107, 2021-1228 (Fed. Cir. June. 1, 2022), the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's decision sustaining Barclays' opposition against Tiger Lily's application for the LEHMAN BROTHERS mark.
When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in 2008, Barclays acquired the LEHMAN BROTHERS mark, but allowed the related trademark registrations to expire over the years. In 2013, Tiger Lily sought to register the mark for beer and spirit. That same year, Barclays also filed to register the same mark for financial services. Barclays then filed an opposition against Tiger Lily, arguing, among other things, likely confusion with the mark. Tiger Lily filed its own opposition to Barclays' application, arguing that Barclays lacked a bona fide intent to use the mark. The TTAB sustained Barclays' opposition and dismissed Tiger Lily's opposition in its entirety.
The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and dismissed-in-part. The Federal Circuit held that Barclays did not abandon the mark because Lehman Brothers continued to use the mark under its license from Barclays, and Barclays used the mark in connection with its own financial services. The Federal Circuit also held that Tiger Lily's use of the mark for its alcoholic products are likely to cause confusion with Barclays' financial offerings, noting that a well-known mark should be afforded a broad scope of protection. Finally, the Federal Circuit held that Barclays had a bona fide intent to commercially use the mark.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
