36 results for 'cat:"Trademark" AND cat:"Discovery"'.
J. Pregerson grants in part Nike's motion for attorney fees in a trademark dispute. A company alleged that Nike and Nordstrom infringed upon its stylized “N” design in their “Nordstrom x Nike” collaboration. The court found that the company owner "misled by omission" his relationship with another party, who turned out to be his mother, and that the relationship was significant regarding proof of the sale of branded products during the relevant period. The company was ordered to pay attorney fees for the discovery misconduct. Days before the scheduled ESI investigation, the company owner alleged that all devices that were scheduled to be searched had been stolen from his car. Nike seeks "full" attorney fees, arguing that the case is "exceptional" due to the discovery misconduct. Nike is awarded $1,491,634 in attorney fees and costs.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Pregerson, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv398, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, discovery, Attorney Fees
J. Robertson denies social and emotional education companies’ motion to stay resolution of cross-motions for summary judgment pending further discovery. The curriculum developer filing for partial summary judgment against the companies was wrong not to provide certain emails during non-expert discovery, but the companies fail to show why they can’t oppose the developer’s partial motions for summary judgment without further discovery.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Robertson, Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: 3:19cv30032, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Education, trademark, discovery
J. Vatti denies the beauty products company's motion to compel, ruling that because it does not claim the products sold by the online retailer are counterfeit and the source of the products are irrelevant to any of its other claims under the Lanham Act, it is not entitled to an order requiring the retailer to disclose the source of the products sold on its website.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Vatti, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv1038, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, discovery
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Kato finds in favor of the science-based nutritional supplement company for its complaint seeking a declaration that its use of the "Nature's Day" mark does not infringe on the dietary supplement brand's mark. The dietary supplement brand does not present evidence that the company knew that the products using the "Nature's Day" mark caused customer confusion, and the dietary supplement brand did not conduct discovery diligently enough to justify giving it more time to conduct discovery.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Kato, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv766, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Evidence, trademark, discovery
J. Borman grants a protective order in trademark infringement claims by requiring that initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests, deposition testimony, and exhibits remain confidential during the proceedings.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Judge: Borman, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv13149, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, discovery, Privilege
J. Bashant grants a joint motion to seal filed by the online pharmacy and its competitor in a trademark case. The parties may redact portions of an expert report that contain patient information or sensitive business information. Also, the parties can redact the contact information of their customers in their exhibits, as providing such information could give competitors an advantage by being able to market to the customers.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Bashant, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv1305, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, discovery
J. Williams denies the trademark owner's motion for sanctions, ruling the infringing company provided documents requested after its initial discovery responses were insufficient, while the owner provides no support for its claim the documents are unusable or not what it requested following the first round of discovery.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Williams, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv1056, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Sanctions, trademark, discovery
J. Horan grants, in part, a test prep company's motion for discovery in its case against a competitor for allegedly copying its materials and trade dress. The company has shown limited jurisdictional discovery related to the contacts between the competitor and another party is appropriate.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Horan, Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv447, NOS: Copyrights - Property Rights, Categories: Copyright, trademark, discovery
J. Gregory finds that the lower court properly quashed a subpoena initiated to obtain an oral deposition of the Australian company's employees. In this trademark dispute, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is prohibited from seeking a discovery deposition. The Melbourne-based company has only the bare minimum corporate presence in Virginia to apply for a trademark, and can only be compelled to produce written discovery.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Gregory, Filed On: March 13, 2024, Case #: 22-1871, Categories: Civil Procedure, trademark, discovery
J. Cole partially grants the plaintiff financial services company’s motion to compel the defendant credit union to produce five categories of documents. This case concerns the financial services company’s “M1” logo and whether the credit union’s “M1st” logo is in breach of trademark. The services company wants access to the credit union’s merit marketing materials, brand guidelines, third-party mark use agreements, 2003 charter amendments and materials from prior litigation. The court orders the credit union to produce specific documents from these categories, but also orders the financial services company to clarify its demands regarding other documents.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Cole, Filed On: January 17, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv1162, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, Business Practices, discovery
J. Whitehead grants the alcohol beverage company's motion for expedited discovery from third parties to discovery the identity of the unknown actor who allegedly used the intermediary to register "thorntailhardavage.com" and other mirror websites that defame the alcohol beverage company, which also infringe on the latter's “Thorntail Hard Agave” trademark. The alcohol beverage company and its owner show good cause to conduct limited early discovery to identify the unknown actor because courts routinely conduct this type of discovery and the request targets information only about the domain registrars, website hosts and back-end service providers associated with the intermediary.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Whitehead, Filed On: December 29, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv1984, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, discovery
J. Bernal denies Monster Energy's motion for sanctions in its lawsuit accusing the pharmaceutical company's products of infringing on Monster's trademarks. Monster Energy does not prove that the pharmaceutical company acted in bad faith as the deposition of the latter's former sales executive often explicitly corroborates the statements that Monster contends are false. The record shows that the executive participated in the pharmaceutical company's preparation and ratified its content during the injunction proceedings, and other witness testimony supports the disputed contents of the executive's declaration.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Bernal, Filed On: December 14, 2023, Case #: 5:18cv1882, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Sanctions, trademark, discovery
J. Jordan grants the company's motions to compel in a trademark case involving the alleged sale of infringing products on Amazon Storefronts. The company's former independent distributors are ordered to amend or supplement their initial disclosures and discovery responses due to their prior conflicting and confusing responses on key issues in the case. "To say that defendants have some explaining to do is an understatement."
Court: USDC Eastern District of Texas , Judge: Jordan, Filed On: December 13, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv900, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Sanctions, trademark, discovery
J. Bashant rules an opthalmic pharmacy may present "belatedly identified witnesses" testimony in court concerning false advertising against a competitor. The pharmacy was unaware of these 12 witnesses or the content of their testimony before receiving a voicemail from the competitor's former employee stating that she had information that would be pertinent to the litigation. However, the competitor will be prejudiced if it is unable to depose the newly identified witnesses so discovery is reopened for the sole purpose of allowing the competitor to conduct these depositions.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Bashant , Filed On: December 12, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv1305, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, discovery, False Advertising
J. Marutollo allows a medications distributor to conduct additional discovery into a purported counterfeit medications scheme, which was the basis for a separate federal action filed by the suing pharmaceutical company in the Southern District of Florida. The distributor is being sued by the pharma firm under trademark law for allegedly participating in a counterfeit HIV medication scheme involving various other entities. The court finds the answer to whether or not the counterfeit supplies in this case are the same supplies at issue in the Florida case is critical to the distributor’s defense.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Marutollo, Filed On: December 8, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv4106, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, discovery
J. Albregts grants the distributor's motion to stay discovery. The electroplating company claiming trademark infringement was purchased by various entities through receivership and the parties dispute whether the company's trademarked name could be used for other purposes after the distributor changed the company name. The distributor has demonstrated good cause to stay discovery since the case is related to other, pending litigation that may alter the scope of the discovery at issue.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Albregts , Filed On: November 27, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv647, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, discovery
J. Docherty adopts a protective order largely as agreed upon by the parties in the automaker's trademark suit against the aftermarket parts seller. Disputes between the parties as to whether an in-house attorney at the automaker's parent company and retained experts and consultants should be able to see discovery material designated "attorneys' eyes only" are resolved largely in favor of the parts seller, with the caveats that the automaker's outside counsel may negotiate with the parts seller's counsel for de-designation should they need to share such information with the in-house counsel, and that the court will be "alert to over-use" of that designation and may order de-designation should it be misused.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Docherty, Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv1681, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, discovery
J. Pregerson grants a motion from Nike and Nordstrom for terminating sanctions based on N.T.A.A.'s discovery misconduct in its litigation alleging that Nordstrom continuously branded its products with a specially designed "N" that belonged to N.T.A.A. The business owner of N.T.A.A. intentionally destroyed or attempted to destroy electronically stored information (ESI) relevant to this case, and the ESI investigation revealed the possible existence of numerous devices, accounts and user names that the business owner did not disclose.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Pregerson, Filed On: November 3, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv398, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Sanctions, trademark, discovery
[Consolidated.] Interlocutory Attorney Lembree grants Instagram's motion to take depositions from two Australia-based officers of Instagoods in Instagram's opposition to registration of the mark, Instagoods. Instagram has shown good cause to take the depositions orally and that videoconference is appropriate.
Court: Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Judge: Lembree, Filed On: October 11, 2023, Case #: 91266266, Categories: trademark, discovery
J. Tunheim denies the German substance-abuse treatment clinic's objection to a magistrate judge's order which found that the clinic's outside auditor, tax advisor and shareholder was a "managing agent," ordered that that agent and other officers, directors and managing agents be deposed in Minneapolis and granted narrowed motions to compel. The order did not rely upon any clear errors.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 0:20cv409, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: International Law, trademark, discovery