Case and filing reviews

Analysis

These are the longer reads. A news item is a short watch note. An analysis walks through the parties, the marks, the posture, and what the record actually decides or only alleges.

Federal court

Nabila, Guzman, and Rao v. Hoops of Dane County: Lanham Act and Wisconsin privacy claims over Ritmo2 social media ads

Gallienne Nabila, Janet Guzman, and Stephanie Rao filed a seven-count complaint on October 27, 2026, in the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 3:26-cv-01070, against Hoops of Dane County, Inc., doing business as Ritmo2. The complaint alleges that Facebook and Instagram advertisements for the Madison nightclub used and altered the plaintiffs' images without payment or permission, creating a false association with the club, and it pleads Lanham Act false endorsement and false advertising under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B), common-law publicity and privacy claims, misappropriation of advertising idea, negligence, Wisconsin Statutes 995.50 invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.

October 29, 2026 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin · 3:26-cv-01070 · Michael P. Eddy

Federal court

SharkNinja v. Spray and Pray: the complaint's warranty theory and alleged refund scheme

SharkNinja Operating LLC filed a four-count complaint on September 23, 2026, in the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:26-cv-14351, against Spray and Pray LLC d/b/a Amazon Seller Spray and Pray LLC. The complaint alleges Lanham Act unfair competition and false advertising under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), plus common-law conversion, common-law fraud, and Massachusetts G.L. c. 93A unfair competition, over Amazon sales of Shark and Ninja products that SharkNinja alleges were advertised as new and warranty-covered, fulfilled with different models, and obtained through refunds for products never returned.

October 29, 2026 · U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1:26-cv-14351 · Michael P. Eddy

TTAB

A second PET-AGREE filing did not escape the first Board loss

On September 16, 2026, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustained Opposition No. 91263504 on Mars, Incorporated's claim preclusion claim against Serial No. 88767940 for PET-AGREE GROOMING SUPPLIES, after Mars won a non-precedential opposition against PET-AGREE in 2019. This opinion states that it is not a precedent of the TTAB. It does not decide likelihood of confusion or dilution.

September 25, 2026 · Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Opposition No. 91263504 · Michael P. Eddy