Organisation: Caterpillar Inc

Caterpillar’s deep understanding of global counterfeiting networks and a proactive approach to portfolio management have won its trademark team this year’s North America WTR Industry Award.

28 August 2024

Among those honoured at this year's WTR Industry Awards were the trademark teams from adidas, Fanatics, Harley-Davidson, Jack Daniel’s and Yum! Brands.

22 May 2024

The primary judge correctly found that Puma's PROCAT mark is deceptively similar to Caterpillar's CAT marks, and that use of the PROCAT mark would cause deception or confusion because of Caterpillar's reputation in its CAT marks.

22 September 2022

The General Court has confirmed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark TIGERCAT for goods in Class 7 and Caterpillar Inc’s earlier CAT marks for identical goods.

27 July 2022

For a final time, WTR takes a look at the highlights and learnings from this year’s INTA Annual Meeting.

19 November 2021

The Federal Court of Australia has refused the registration of sporting company Puma’s PROCAT mark, concluding that its use would be likely to cause confusion with heavy equipment manufacturer Caterpillar’s CAT mark. 

14 September 2021

Well-known US construction equipment manufacturer Caterpillar has been partially successful in its oppositions to the registration of the word mark IRONCAT and the logo mark IRONCAT TYRES for tyres and related services in Australia.

08 April 2020

In our latest opinion column, we examine a new list of the biggest “trademark bullies”, which may generate discussion but should be treated with caution.

06 February 2019

<i>WTR</i> is pleased to announce the shortlist for the 2013 WTR Industry Awards. While the teams span both the globe and the industries that make up today’s corporate environment, if there is one common trait that all the nominees share, it is the value they are adding to their respective organisations.

18 April 2013

In <i>Ertner v OHIM</i>, the General Court has considered whether the CTM ERKAT in Classes 7 and 42 was invalid under Articles 53(1)(a) and (b) of the Community Trademark Regulation, in view of Caterpillar Inc’s earlier CAT marks, also covering goods and services in Classes 7 and 42. The case emphasises the importance of giving full consideration to each cumulative element of both Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of the regulation.

27 September 2012