USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Rey Barceló, Barceló, Harrison & Walker, LLP
For clients, the lesson is not the headline number alone. The settlement underscores that risk is driven by provenance facts, retention practices and internal controls. Companies that cannot tell a coherent sourc - ing story may find that even favourable legal argu - ments become difficult to monetise at scale, because the litigation risk becomes too large to carry. Trade Mark and Unfair Competition in California in 2025 NFTs and virtual goods In Yuga Labs v Ripps (9th Cir., July 2025), the Ninth Circuit held that NFTs can qualify as “goods” under the Lanham Act. That holding matters because it provides a direct answer to a threshold question that often complicates virtual goods disputes: whether trade mark law can apply to digital-native assets sold in online marketplaces. The Ninth Circuit’s decision, however, did not hand brands an automatic win. It reversed summary judg - ment for Yuga on infringement and cybersquatting because likelihood of confusion had not been estab - lished as a matter of law. The court required a tradi - tional confusion analysis and emphasised that even in digital markets, trade mark claims must still be proven with evidence tied to consumer perception and the way the product is marketed and sold. For clients, Yuga provides both an enforcement opportunity and a caution. Brands can assert rights in NFT markets, but defendants can still force a rigor - ous confusion inquiry. The “virtual” nature of the good does not eliminate trade mark protection, but it also does not eliminate defences or the need for proof. Naming collisions and reverse confusion risk: Cameo v OpenAI Cameo v OpenAI (N.D. Cal., November 2025) high - lights a practical issue many clients underestimate: feature naming can become litigation. In November 2025, the Northern District of California issued a Temporary Restraining Order (later extended through February of 2026 after a hearing on a preliminary injunction) forbidding OpenAI from using “Cameo” or confusingly similar marks in connection with a feature, service or functionality. The order reflects a classic reverse-confusion problem: a well-funded entrant with
massive reach can overwhelm a smaller incumbent’s market identity. For clients launching products in fast-moving catego - ries, the lesson is simple. Naming decisions should be treated as clearance decisions, not purely marketing decisions. A naming collision can trigger emergency relief, force a rebrand at a critical launch window, and create reputational harm that persists even after litiga - tion settles. “Dupe” marketing and false advertising: Williams- Sonoma v Quince Williams-Sonoma v Quince (filed in Northern Califor - nia in November 2025) illustrates a broader trend in trade mark-adjacent disputes. Rather than alleging classic counterfeiting, the complaint focuses on com - parative marketing and alleged implied equivalence. Public reporting highlighted slogans and comparison framing, including “Like Williams-Sonoma, but half the price”, and asserted false advertising and unfair competition theories. This approach reflects a common enforcement strat - egy in modern e-commerce. Where product design or trade dress claims might be complicated by function - ality or by the expense of consumer surveys, brand owners increasingly focus on the truthfulness of com - parative claims. If a seller implies equivalence, the seller may be required to substantiate it. For clients who use comparison marketing, the practical risk is not only trade mark confusion but also false advertis - ing exposure. E-commerce and Platform Dispute Systems: The Practical First Forum In 2025, many IP disputes were resolved – or at least defined – inside platform dispute systems. Amazon’s rights-owner tools, TikTok Shop’s intellectual prop - erty reporting channels, and Meta’s brand protection systems operate with their own filing requirements, evidentiary expectations and appeal workflows. For many clients, the first meaningful decision about an IP dispute is a platform decision, not a court ruling. That shift has practical consequences. Platform deci - sions often occur on significantly shorter timelines than court proceedings, and the economic impact of
680 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook