This month in trademarks: a California federal court allows a Chinese restaurant chain to pursue U.S. claims based on its alleged foreign fame; a Chinese tea chain loses a second bid for emergency relief against its New York licensee; the Chicago Cubs win a permanent injunction against a rooftop that kept selling tickets after its license ended; the TTAB sends RAPUNZEL for dolls back to the examining attorney; Taylor Swift and Italy’s prime minister file voice marks in Europe; and the USPTO moves outbound Madrid filings to a WIPO platform.
Teng v. Tao: foreign fame survives a second motion to dismiss
On August 31, 2026, Judge Wesley L. Hsu of the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in Teng v. Tao, No. 2:25-cv-05360-WLH-AJR (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2026). Plaintiffs are Feilong Teng, who lives in China, and Heilongjiang Tang Huo Kung Fu Catering Co., Ltd., which operates the Tang Huo Kung Fu restaurant chain abroad. Defendants are Jin Tao and related entities and individuals who operate TANG HUO KUNG FU SPICY HOT POT in California. The order has implications for foreign brands preparing to enter the U.S. market.
Tao alleged first use in commerce on October 15, 2019. He filed his application on December 17, 2019, and received Registration No. 6,100,457 in July 2020. Plaintiffs alleged their marks were already known in the relevant U.S. markets before that. The USPTO has since registered plaintiffs’ image mark (Registration No. 8,210,080), but plaintiffs do not allege that it predates Tao’s use or registration. On June 5, 2026, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part a motion to dismiss the original complaint because plaintiffs had not pleaded a protectable U.S. interest. Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint which was the subject of a second motion to dismiss.
Trademark rights are territorial, so foreign use alone does not create U.S. priority. The Ninth Circuit recognizes a narrow exception for famous foreign marks. Under Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., 391 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004), a court must find that a substantial percentage of consumers in the relevant American market is familiar with the foreign mark. Relevant factors include intentional copying and whether customers are likely to think they are patronizing the same firm that uses the mark abroad.
The court found the amended allegations sufficient. According to the amended complaint, before October 2019 the chain already had many hundreds of restaurants in China, dozens in South Korea, and about 40 in other countries combined, and its restaurants had won awards between 2010 and 2017. Plaintiffs also allege recognition among diaspora communities and visiting travelers in Los Angeles’ Koreatown, Berkeley, and Flushing, Queens. Tao’s restaurant is in Koreatown. The court held that plaintiffs need not prove these facts at the pleading stage. It also held that later expansion does not undo recognition that existed before 2019.
The court rejected parts of plaintiffs’ theory. It agreed with defendants that worldwide internet availability of a brand’s advertising does not, by itself, establish U.S. fame. It also agreed that restaurant counts and foreign awards do not show what U.S. consumers knew. Even so, it held that the boundaries of the relevant market, and the level of awareness in it, are fact questions for discovery, surveys, and experts. The court suggested the relevant market might be everyone who eats in Koreatown, not only Korean or Chinese diners.
The remaining claims also proceed, including a claim of false association under Section 43(a)(1)(A). The Court cited Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, 819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 2016), for the point that a plaintiff need not have used its mark in U.S. commerce, and added that the claim would survive in any event because plaintiffs plausibly allege a protectable interest.
This is a pleading ruling, not a finding of fame or a ruling on the merits of the dispute. Foreign brand owners should still file in the United States before entering the market. If the famous-mark exception is the only available route, owners need to build the record of use and recognition early. Useful evidence includes dated U.S. press, social media metrics by city, U.S. customer reviews, potentially travel and diaspora data, and a survey of the specific local market. Monitor U.S. trademark filings and domain registrations for your name and its transliterations.
Molly Tea: a Chinese brand owner loses a second request for emergency relief against its New York licensee
On October 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan denied a second request for a preliminary injunction by Shenzhen Molly Tea Food and Beverage Management Co., Ltd. and two U.S. affiliates, Mollytea Shops LLC and Molly Tea Holding Inc. The defendant is MHL NY LLC, which operates three New York City tea stores under a 2023 license. According to Fashion Times, plaintiffs sued in May 2026 for breach of the licensing and shareholder agreements, trademark infringement, and disclosure of confidential information. They asked the court to dissolve the entities that run the three stores and put Mollytea Shops in charge. The court held that plaintiffs had not shown a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
An earlier injunction remains in place. On June 23, 2026, the court amended a preliminary injunction that restricts MHL NY’s use of the MOLLY TEA marks. In August, it refused to reconsider that order because MHL NY had not raised its ownership challenge during the original injunction proceedings. That challenge is the core of the case. MHL NY argues that Molly Tea NYC Inc., which ran the original Flushing store, was the first to use the brand in the United States. The Chinese company holds two U.S. registrations for MOLLY TEA and also claims trade dress in its storefronts, interiors, and employee uniforms. The court has not decided who owns the marks.
Foreign brands using U.S. partners should register before the first store opens, and they should include quality control provisions in the license. A registration is evidence of rights, but it does not settle a priority dispute with the people who opened the first location. Under the related-company doctrine in Section 5 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1055, a licensee’s use benefits the licensor only where the licensor controls the nature and quality of the goods or services. Document who made the first U.S. use and under whose authority, and raise ownership defenses at the first opportunity. Here, the court refused to reconsider the injunction for that reason. Likewise, brand owners should expect a licensee to test the chain of title.
Chicago Cubs win a permanent injunction against a rooftop that sold tickets after its license ended
On September 30, 2026, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois granted the Chicago Cubs partial summary judgment and a permanent injunction in Chicago Cubs Baseball Club LLC v. Dunican (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2026). The defendants are Aidan Dunican and Rooftop by the Firehouse, Inc., doing business as Wrigley View Rooftop. The Court found misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and trademark infringement, but it denied the Cubs’ false advertising claim.
Wrigley View sold tickets to watch games from rooftop seating for up to 200 people. An earlier agreement with the neighborhood rooftop businesses let them sell tickets and use Cubs marks in exchange for 17 percent of gross revenue and 11 percent of billboard income. That agreement expired on December 31, 2023. When the Cubs offered new terms at a higher rate, most other rooftops signed. Wrigley View did not, and it kept selling tickets, so the Cubs sued on June 18, 2024.
On the state-law claims, the court relied on a decision from the 1930s in which the Pittsburgh Pirates stopped a radio station from broadcasting games from nearby rooftops. It held that Wrigley View sold access to a product the Cubs paid to create, and that it diverted at least some revenue that would otherwise reach the Cubs through ticket sales or royalties paid by other rooftops. With respect to the trademark claim, the court found liability because Wrigley View did not remove all Cubs marks and endorsements from its website and promotional materials after the license ended.
The court rejected the Cubs’ false advertising claim; however, finding that, though the rooftop’s continued claim to be an “Official Partner of the Cubs” was false, the Cubs offered no evidence that the statement was likely to influence purchasing decisions. The court ultimately issued a permanent injunction barring use of the Cubs’ marks, any suggestion of affiliation, and ticket sales when the club is playing.
For licensors, the broader win rested on state law claims of misappropriation and unfair competition, which resulted in a permanent injunction, while the trademark claim reached only leftover marks. The lesson for rights holders is to think broadly about utilizing state law claims in addition to the Lanham Act when licensees’ use is outside the agreement.
TTAB sends RAPUNZEL for dolls back to the examining attorney
On October 14, 2026, in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., Opposition No. 91241083 (TTAB Oct. 14, 2026) [not precedential], the Board remanded the RAPUNZEL application for dolls to the examining attorney to consider whether the mark is registrable. The Board said it will terminate the opposition in due course. See also the TTABlog summary.
Professor Rebecca Curtin opposed the application as a consumer. The Federal Circuit held in May 2025 that a mere consumer lacked entitlement to bring the opposition, Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., 137 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2025), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in April 2026.
But that was not the end of this case. Under Trademark Rule 2.131, the Board could remand an application when facts disclosed in an inter partes case appear to render the mark unregistrable and the pleadings did not try that issue. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.131. The Board found both conditions met, where the summary judgment briefing and trial evidence appeared to render RAPUNZEL unregistrable based on the claim pleaded by Curtin.
The Board also pointed to Section 13(b) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1063(b), which allows registration after a failed opposition only if the mark is entitled to registration. It cited In re United Trademark Holdings, Inc., 2017 WL 2876825 (TTAB 2017) (precedential), where the Board refused LITTLE MERMAID as merely descriptive for dolls. If the examining attorney issues a final refusal, the applicant may appeal under Trademark Rules 2.141 and 2.142.
An entitlement ruling does not necessarily resolve registrability. The evidence developed in the case stays in the record, and an examining attorney can issue a new refusal after publication, as TMEP § 706.01 allows. Applicants who seek to register the names of public-domain characters for toys should expect a descriptiveness or genericness inquiry. The order is not precedential, and the examining attorney has not yet acted.
Taylor Swift and Giorgia Meloni take voice marks to Europe
On October 6 and 7, Taylor Swift’s company, TAS Rights Management, LLC, filed sound mark and image applications in the UK and the EU, and a sound mark in Australia. The filings follow three U.S. applications filed on April 24, 2026, which we covered in our May update and revisited in September. The Australian sound mark, “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift,” was accepted on October 12, six days after filing, and is now in an opposition period that typically lasts two months. The UK and EU applications are under examination. The Australian and UK applications claim the April 24 U.S. filing date as their priority date, which keeps them inside the Paris Convention’s six-month window.
The celebrity’s strategy is gaining popularity among politicians. In early October, Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s prime minister, filed an EU sound mark consisting of a short recording of her saying “Io sono Giorgia Meloni” twice. EFE reportedly said that Swift’s EU filing reached the EUIPO a day after Meloni’s. In the United States, Lionel Richie filed four voice applications in June, and the Backstreet Boys filed one on June 24.
The Austrian Patent Office explained the limits on October 15. A sound mark covers the specific recording filed, plus signs confusingly similar to it, and only for the listed goods and services in the territory where it is registered. Importantly, it is not a right to someone’s voice. The recording must work as a source identifier, and a person’s voice changes over time while the registered recording does not. Pitbull’s trademark yell and Matthew McConaughey’s “Alright, alright, alright,” which he registered in the U.S. in late 2025, show how a short spoken call can function as a mark, though registering a spoken voice has not yet been tested in court.
A quick note on filings: outbound Madrid applications move to WIPO
On October 1, 2026, the USPTO moved outbound international filings, meaning applications filed through the USPTO as office of origin, from TEASi to WIPO’s Madrid e-Filing system. This affects U.S. applicants seeking protection abroad. Applications already filed in TEASi must be completed in TEASi. New filings, and responses to later irregularity notices, go through Madrid e-Filing unless exempted. Applicants need a WIPO Account, and the USPTO recommends using the same email address for the account and the application. Applicants now pay WIPO directly in Swiss francs instead of paying the USPTO in dollars.
