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

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

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

© 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.