To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
What happens when a junior trademark holder’s business becomes so popular and well known that it threatens to swamp the reputation of a senior mark holder? The senior mark holder brings a trademark infringement case alleging “reverse confusion” among its potential customers. This was the scenario the Ninth Circuit faced in its recent decision in:
Ironhawk Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. (decided April 20, 2021).
Ironhawk develops computer software that uses compression technology to allow for the efficient transfer of data, especially in “bandwidth-challenged environments.” It has marketed its software under the name “SmartSync” since 2004 and obtained a trademark for SmartSync in 2007. It sells its software primarily to the United States Navy but, in 2013, sold its software to at least one major pharmacy chain.
The Ninth Circuit’s April opinion in exemplary suit Ironhawk Technologies Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., regarding Dropbox’s alleged infringement of the SmartSync
Thursday, April 29, 2021
In a split decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for trial in an action brought under the Lanham Act in order to resolve material issues of fact on likelihood of confusion/reverse confusion factors that remain in dispute.
Ironhawk Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., Case No. 19-56347 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2021) (Smith, J.) (Tashima, J., dissenting)
Ironhawk developed computer software designed to transfer data efficiently in “bandwidth-challenged environments” and has marketed the software since 2004 using the name “SmartSync.” Ironhawk registered the SmartSync mark in 2007. In 2017, Dropbox launched a feature entitled “Smart Sync,” which allowed users to see and access files in their Dropbox cloud storage accounts without taking up space on their hard drive. Ironhawk sued Dropbox for trademark infringement and unfair competition in 2018, alleging th
Tech
your username
5 hours ago
On Tuesday, Ninth Circuit Judges A. Wallace Tashima, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Mary H. Murguia issued an opinion reversing and vacating the Central District of California’s granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant Dropbox Inc. and remanding for trial in Ironhawk Technologies Inc.’s trademark infringement lawsuit after the appellate panel found there to be real issues of material fact.
According to the opinion written by Smith, Ironhawk created computer software that utilizes “compression and replication to transfer data efficiently in ‘bandwidth-challenged environments’ ” marketed under the name SmartSync, for which it has had a trademark registration since 2007. The appellate panel noted that in 2017 Dropbox launched its Smart Sync feature, which “allows users to see and access files in their Dropbox cloud storage accounts from a desktop computer without taking up the computer’s hard drive space.” As a result, Ironhawk su