Supreme Court Holds that Trademark “Tacking” Is a Jury Question

Jan 28, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

Petitioner Hana Financial sued Hana Bank for infringement of its Hana Financial mark. Hana Bank sought to avoid infringement by tacking together its long, historical use of a variety of company names and logos that include the word Hana. The jury returned a verdict of no infringement and the court denied petitioner’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, but recognized that there was a circuit split as to whether judges or juries should decide the tacking question.

The Supreme Court resolved this split by holding that tacking is an issue to be resolved by a jury. The test for applying the tacking doctrine is whether the original mark and the modified mark “create the same, continuing commercial impression” such that consumers would consider the two marks to be the same. The Supreme Court analogized this test to other jury issues—including ones outside of the trademark context—that rely on the views

and understanding of an ordinary person. Nevertheless, the court held open the possibility that under the right factual circumstances, summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law may be appropriate.

Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13­1211, 2015 WL 248559 (U.S. Jan. 21 2015).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.