Belmora v. Bayer: Does The Lanham Act Protect An Owner Of A Well-Known Foreign Mark From Intentional Misuse Of The Mark In The U.S.?

WilmerHale

WilmerHale provides legal representation across a comprehensive range of practice areas critical to the success of its clients. With a staunch commitment to public service, the firm is a leader in pro bono representation. WilmerHale is 1,000 lawyers strong with 12 offices in the United States, Europe and Asia.

Explore Firm Details

The authors analyze a case now before the Fourth Circuit on the scope of protection under the Lanham Act for a company that used a drug trademark only in a foreign country but whose mark was copied by a competitor selling the same drug in the U.S.

United States Intellectual Property

In Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG,¹ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is faced with novel issues about the reach of the Lanham Act. The case arose from Bayer's filing of a petition to cancel Belmora's registered trademark FLANAX on the grounds that Belmora's use of that mark deceives consumers into believing that its FLANAX pain relief product is from the same source as the FLANAX product that Bayer has sold in Mexico for over four decades.

Please click here to continue reading the full text of this article

Originally published in BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 01/01/2016

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.

Belmora v. Bayer: Does The Lanham Act Protect An Owner Of A Well-Known Foreign Mark From Intentional Misuse Of The Mark In The U.S.?

Contributor

Intellectual Property

Contributor

United States