28 results for 'cat:"Trademark" AND cat:"Attorney Fees"'.
J. Rosenthal finds that Nike can recover a portion of their request for attorney fees for a dismissed trademark infringement claim over the company’s use of the term “Ballin.” The claimant who brought the original claim against Nike did not act with animus, rather he believed, albeit falsely, that he held trademark ownership over the commonly used term. Nike easily obtained dismissal, so its request for $570,000 in attorney fees is excessive, and the court instead grants Nike $25,000.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Rosenthal, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv103, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees
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. Horan finds that a health care management company’s failure to produce court ordered documents in an underlying trademark case brought by a group of hospital emergency rooms is not excusable just because the company says it faced technical difficulties retrieving the documents. The limited number of documents that the company failed to produce are of specific and central importance to the case suggesting an attempt to evade the court’s order to produce. The court grants sanction measures requested by the emergency rooms.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Horan, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv891, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Sanctions, trademark, attorney Fees
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. Lake finds the use of the name of a defunct musical group by two former members of the group in a new iteration of the band, featuring a new third member, was not an unauthorized use. However, their request for attorney fees is denied because the plaintiff, the band’s former third member, did not conduct their infringement case against the new group in an unreasonable manner.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Lake, Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 4:21cv3942, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees
J. Gilbert partially grants a number of the sued retailers’ motions for fees and fee itemization. The court orders a monster truck manufacturer, as part of the underlying trademark suits, to pay the defendants more than $14,000 in fees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Gilbert, Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv6758, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees
J. Grosjean recommends granting, in part, a solar company’s motion for default judgment in its trademark infringement case against a solar business owner. The owner failed to respond to the complaint, and the solar company has sufficiently alleged he infringed its marks.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Grosjean, Filed On: January 23, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv999, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees
J. Nugee finds a lower court properly dismissed a patent and trademark law firm's claims that a commission recovery service is not entitled to represent its disgruntled customers in court. The patent and trademark attorneys argued that it is not obligated to remind clients to pay a renewal fee for patent rights, and that it is entitled to pass their personal data to a patent annuities establishment for renewal alerts. However, the patent and trademark attorneys failed to disclose to clients that the renewal fees were exorbitant. Affirmed.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Nugee, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: CA-2023-691, Categories: Patent, trademark, attorney Fees
J. Pitlyk finds that the lower court properly denied both parties' motion for attorney's fees in this trademark dispute over the use of a family name in connection with competing HVAC businesses. Although the jury found the defendant justified in using his name to open a new HVAC business to compete with his family members, the plaintiff business's position was not frivolous, so the defendant is not entitled to fees.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Missouri, Judge: Pitlyk, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 4:19cv200, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees
J. Liburdi grants a nutrition products company's motion for default judgment concerning trademark infringement claims against a dietary supplement seller concerning a "BLACKOUT" labeled sleep aid product. The nutrition company sufficiently showed in court that the supplement seller failed to respond to its claims, despite being properly served.
Court: USDC Arizona, Judge: Liburdi, Filed On: January 5, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1188, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees
J. Richard Nelson denies the trademark claimants' motions for a permanent injunction and for attorney fees and the trademark defendant's motion for a judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial or remittur. A reasonable jury could find that the trademark defendant directly copied its competitor's parabolic heater's manual for its own product's manual, so its verdict stands. The jury's award of maximum statutory damages was also reasonable. The defendant has not distributed the manual at issue for years, so the trademark plaintiff's claimed harms are too speculative to warrant an injunction. The trademark defendant's arguments were also not so unreasonable or meritless as to justify an award of attorney fees.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Richard Nelson, Filed On: November 17, 2023, Case #: 0:18cv3321, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees, Injunction
[Consolidated.] J. Mathis finds the lower court erroneously dismissed the girls' clothing manufacturer's trademark infringement claims against a competitor founded by former employees. The marketing expenditures of the company and the number of years it has sold the clothes both in Kentucky and the U.S. lend significant strength to its logos, while the competitor's design is similar enough it may cause confusion among consumers. Reversed in part.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Mathis, Filed On: September 21, 2023, Case #: 21-5723, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees
J. Palermo denies a swim school's motion for judgment as a matter of law in a competitor's trade dress case, during which a jury awarded the competitor $187,000 in disgorged profits after finding the swim school infringed upon the competitor's trade dress. Sufficient evidence supports the jury's findings, and the competitor is also entitled to $482,000 in attorney fees.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Palermo, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv1525, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, Damages, attorney Fees
J. Larsen finds the trial court properly awarded the La Bamba Mexican restaurant chain profits from a competitor. Although the owner of the competing restaurant did not know of La Bamba's trademark until he received a cease-and-desist letter, he continued to use the infringing name for more than a year and a half, which constituted willful infringement. Meanwhile, the willful conduct also supported the award of attorney fees to the trademark holder, given the competitor provided no evidence of any limiting factors and did not contest the calculation method used by the court. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Larsen, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 22-5853, Categories: trademark, Damages, attorney Fees
J. Wright II grants $55,600 in attorney fees to the geles company for prevailing in the apparel company's trademark claim accusing the geles company of infringing on the former's "ANGELINA" and "SWAN" trademarks by selling geles, a type of headwear, with the "ANGELINA SWANN" mark. This case is exceptional as there was not a reasonable chance of consumer confusion regarding the products. Also, the apparel company committed unreasonable litigation conduct by repeatedly not fulfilling its discovery obligations.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Wright II, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv915, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees
J. Wilson grants $59,000 in attorney fees to the United Kingdom company for its trademark claim against the collectibles store. Aside from the listed reductions, the collectibles store does not prove that the hours the United Kingdom company’s attorneys submitted are unreasonable, as the attorneys have decades of law experience.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Wilson, Filed On: July 11, 2023, Case #: 2:05cv6539, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees
J. Beckerman partially grants the business management consultant's motion to vacate a default judgment in favor of the engineering services company for its claim that the consultant infringes on the engineering company's trademark. The record suggests that the consultant did not receive notice of the action until after default judgment was entered, at which point it appeared. As such, the engineering company's post-judgment requests for attorney fees and bill of costs are denied.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Beckerman, Filed On: June 13, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv1584, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, attorney Fees
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. 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. Meerveld grants a request by a popular Vietnamese-American bakery in New Orleans for an award of $6,943 in attorney fees against a Texas-based company, arising from the latter business’s unsuccessful attempt to enforce terms of a settlement agreement over an intellectual property dispute. The bakery’s award was reduced $1,062, partly because there was “no longer a reasonable basis” for the legal advice of an intellectual property counsel at the applicable stage of the dispute.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Meerveld, Filed On: May 15, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv1109, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Settlements, trademark, attorney Fees