446 results for 'cat:"Trademark"'.
J. Coughenour grants summary judgment to the personal protective equipment ("PPE") manufacturer for its claim that, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the medical device manufacturer represented to multiple clients that it could provide millions of the PPE manufacturer's trademarked respirators at a rate above the listed price with the PPE manufacturer's alleged inclusion. The medical device manufacturer used the PPE manufacturer's trademark to offer the sale of counterfeit goods to consumers, which it never had and which it was never given permission to do.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Coughenour, Filed On: June 7, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv1096, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, Covid-19
J. Brimmer grants a company that bought an internet domain name dismissal of an organization's claims contending it had already trademarked the name in another country because the company did not act to profit from the organization's trademark and had not offered to sell the domain to the organization.
Court: USDC Colorado, Judge: Brimmer, Filed On: June 7, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv1997, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark
J. King finds the lower court improperly ordered a preliminary injunction against the Asian business entities that compete in marketing video gaming chairs and other products. The first order contained clear and enforceable directives that threatened the company with contempt for noncompliance if they did not stop marketing their company with the disputed trademark. The district court made procedural errors that amount to abuses of its discretion in ordering the injunction while many aspects of the case were still debated. Vacated.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: King, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 22-1495, Categories: International Law, trademark, Injunction
J. Koeltl denies the nonparty individual's motion to intervene to assert counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty in a trademark infringement action derivatively on behalf of a company in which he holds a 50% interest. The action arises out of a dispute over a trademark used by three New York City Greek restaurants. The individual failed to show diligence since he had information supporting the proposed amendment for more than two months before filing the motion. The proposed amendment would substantially prejudice the other company.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Koeltl, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv5022, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, trademark
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. Corker grants the Arizona companies' motion to dismiss this trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a Tennessee company that digitizes physical media for consumers and markets its service with the trademark "Legacybox." The Arizona companies do not have "systematic" contacts with the state, and the allegations do not show that they "purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of acting in Tennessee." Accordingly, they are not subject to jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: Corker, Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv210, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, Jurisdiction
J. Ebel finds that the lower court properly found there was not a likelihood of confusion between two marks in a trademark suit between two education-related providers. While the marks are similar, there is little evidence of actual confusion taking place. The parties do business in different markets and consumers in that space are likely to use a lot of care in picking those types of services. Affirmed.
Court: 10th Circuit, Judge: Ebel, Filed On: May 31, 2023, Case #: 22-1248, Categories: trademark
J. Scarsi finds in favor of the nonprofit public benefit corporation for its contract counterclaim alleging that the business owners did not keep thousands of its patients’ private medical records confidential in 2012, and alleging that in 2021 the business owners registered a website with “access to thousands of current and past Kaiser Permanente members and patients” that displayed the nonprofit public benefit corporation’s marks. The nonprofit corporation is entitled to damages because the business owners refused to delete at least one patient's data despite their request to do so, and the nonprofit corporation’s efforts to complete this request cost several thousand dollars.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Scarsi, Filed On: May 31, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv278, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, Damages, Contract
J. Lin grants the plastic surgery practice leave to file a first amended complaint arising from its lawsuit alleging that the cosmetics and reconstructive services companies used a brand similar to that of the plastic surgery practice. The plastic surgery practice simply intends to add factual allegations to the Consumer Protection Act claim, which will not create an undue burden for the cosmetics and reconstructive services companies.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lin, Filed On: May 31, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv773, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, Consumer Law
J. Wardlaw found that the district court properly found that a competitor furniture company intentionally copied three unique high-end furniture designs by a furniture company. The competitor was liable on trade dress infringement claims and the lower court properly awarded attorney fees. Affirmed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Wardlaw, Filed On: May 30, 2023, Case #: 21-16978, Categories: trademark, Attorney Fees
J. Lasnik grants the alpine club a temporary restraining order stopping the park owner its employees from restraining access to the Kitsap Rhododendron Preserve, as part of the park owner's objection that the alpine club does not have a valid easement to the preserve owned by the park owner. The alpine club shows that “irreparable harm is likely to result in the absence of the injunction," because it would be unable to put on its theatrical performances without access to the venue and thus would have to cancel the performances, including the 100th anniversary of the theater program that involved hundreds of volunteers and 1,500 tickets sold.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lasnik, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: 2:19cv1819, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Property, trademark, Restraining Order
J. Shields rules in a bench trial and finds in a favor of a security system installation company on its claims for false designation of origin and false advertising under the Lanham Act plus its claim for tortious interference with contract against a competitor and awards them $91,036 compensatory damages for lost revenue. The former employee solicited the litigant’s customers acquired after it purchased a now-defunct competitor and persuaded them to switch services. The court issues an injunction prohibiting the competitor from contacting any of the litigant’s customers, using its confidential information or making disparaging statements regarding the litigant’s business operations.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Shields, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: 2:17cv1194, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Trade Secrets, trademark, Damages
J. Mazzant awards the guitar maker $1,248 in net profits and $9,176 in attorney fees on its post-verdict claim of contempt against the competitor that was still selling infringing guitars in violation of the permanent injunction against it.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Texas , Judge: Mazzant, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: 4:19cv358, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Sanctions, trademark, Attorney Fees
J. Lynch finds that the district court properly dismissed eight models' claims contending their likenesses were used without authorization to promote a "gentlemen's club" on social media because precedent holds that recognizability is key under trademark law to establish consumer confusion by false endorsement. Meanwhile, state law claims were untimely. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Lynch, Filed On: May 19, 2023, Case #: 21-2149-cv, Categories: trademark, False Advertising