⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit hears a dispute over who owns the Vivace brand. A South Korean manufacturer known as Shen B developed the radio-frequency microneedling device and sent branded units to the United States for testing and promotion. Aesthetics Biomedical became its exclusive American distributor in 2016, paid for advertising, marketed the devices, and became a point of contact for customers. It also obtained a federal registration for Vivace. The manufacturer later asked the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel that registration, asserting that the brand belonged to it, not its distributor. The Board agreed, finding that the manufacturer's earlier American use established ownership and that Aesthetics Biomedical did not own the mark when it applied to register it. Aesthetics Biomedical is now appealing. The central question is how to determine trademark ownership between a manufacturer and its exclusive distributor when their agreement does not expressly settle that question. The approach discussed as the McCarthy test starts with a presumption favoring the manufacturer, but lets the distributor rebut it with evidence about matters such as branding, quality control, advertising, and customer perception. Aesthetics Biomedical's lawyer will argue that the Board should have used that broader analysis despite the manufacturer's earlier use. Shen B's lawyer will argue that established trademark rights predating the partnership make that analysis unnecessary. The Board also found that the manufacturer would prevail even under the alternative framework. Aesthetics Biomedical will challenge that reasoning as counting factors instead of weighing them; Shen B will defend it as supported by the record. Listen for two separate questions: which ownership test applies, and whether choosing a different test would actually change the result.

Aesthetics Biomedical, Inc. v. Sung Hwan E&B Co. Ltd. (No. 25-1645) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 6, 2026.