21 results for 'cat:"Trademark" AND cat:"Unfair Competition"'.
J. Nye grants a roofing company's motion for default judgment regarding allegations that a competitor began operating under the same name, which has led to marketplace confusion and lost business, as well as customer complaints to the roofing company from dissatisfied consumers who worked with the competitor. The roofing company sent a cease and desist letter to the competitor to stop using the trademarked name, but the competitor has not stopped. The roofing company has sufficiently stated a claim for trademark infringement and unfair competition, and has demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction. The company is granted $8,386 in costs and fees and the competitor is permanently enjoined from using the trademarked name.
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Nye, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv310, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition
J. Arnold finds a lower court properly dismissed a German discount supermarket's trademark claims against competitor Tesco groceries. The German discount supermarket argued that Tesco copied its trademark, which is a blue square with a yellow circle, which has a red ring around it. However. Tesco sufficiently showed in court that its mark does not confuse consumers because it is a blue square with a yellow circle absent of a red ring, which lists "Clubcard Prices," and not its actual logo.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Arnold, Filed On: March 19, 2024, Case #: CA-2023-1115, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition
J. Lynn grants, in part, a beauty supplier's motion for judgment as a matter of law in a hair extension-maker's trademark case against it. There is no evidence to support the jury's $1.3 million damages award for the supplier's breach of the parties' settlement agreement, and there is also no support for the hair extension-maker's unfair competition claim.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Lynn, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv2179, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition, Damages
J. Cogburn denies a home security company’s motion for attorney fees in its trademark infringement suit against a competitor. In a jury trial, the company was awarded $140 million in punitive damages, some of which can be put toward attorney fees and is sufficient as a deterrent to the competitor not to engage in similar behavior going forward.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Cogburn, Filed On: January 23, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv504, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Trade, trademark, unfair Competition
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
Per curiam, the circuit finds that the district court properly dismissed trade dress infringement claims alleging a competitor made a knock-off of plaintiff's Mackage coat because plaintiff did not precisely describe the trade dress or demonstrate dilution of distinctiveness. However, state unfair competition claims alleging misappropriation of proprietary interests other than trade dress should be addressed on remand. Affirmed in part.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 22-1965, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition
J. Cogburn denies a home security company’s motions to alter judgment and for a new trial following a jury’s decision to award its competitor $49.7 million in damages. The losing company misled customers by saying it was affiliated with its competitor and would be taking over the latter’s customer accounts, upgrade its equipment and so on, to gain the customers’ business at competitor’s loss. The firm that lost argues that the awards are inflated and based on inflammatory evidence. However, the evidence presented is not exaggerated and is properly used to discourage the very behavior in which the company engaged.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Cogburn, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv504, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Tort, trademark, unfair Competition
J. D'Agostino rules Meta Platforms, parent company of Facebook and Instagram, cannot be held directly liable for a third-party’s sales of knockoff Little Trees car freshener products and dismisses all trademark dilution, infringement and unfair competition claims asserted against it. The complaint fails to allege the social media platform itself placed the manufacturer’s trademarks on any goods sold on its platform.
Court: USDC Western District of New York, Judge: D’Agostino, Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv1305, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition
J. Jordan dismisses the company's trademark infringement suit against the creator of the "Baby Shark" video, which has billions of views on YouTube. The court lacks jurisdiction over the video creator, which is based in South Korea and "has no business presence in Texas whatsoever."
Court: USDC Eastern District of Texas , Judge: Jordan, Filed On: October 6, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv368, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition, Jurisdiction
J. Grimberg rules in favor of the Ralph Lauren subsidiary company in a trademark infringement and unfair competition action against an individual and the clothing store to recover damages premised on the individual's underlying guilty plea to trafficking in counterfeit Ralph Lauren goods. The company's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the individual because the counterfeit goods he admitted to selling caused consumer confusion. However, a genuine dispute of fact exists as to whether the store, which has two locations, used the Ralph Lauren marks in commerce.
Court: USDC Northern District of Georgia, Judge: Grimberg, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv1936, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition
J. Schroeder grants in part a women’s intercollegiate lacrosse coaches organization’s motion for summary judgment against an event management company for trademark infringement. The company began using the organization’s logos and applied for trademarks for them when the parties disagreed on whether their 2020 tournament series should be cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The organization officially cancelled the series, but the company advertised that it would still be held. The company’s use of the logos evidences its violation of trademark law, and its refusal to cancel the series constitutes tortious interference with the parties’ contract as well as unfair trade practices.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Schroeder, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv425, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition, Interference With Contract
J. Thompson denies a competitor's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit it faces from an insurance company claiming it intentionally used their "Alfa" service mark. The competitor argues that the statute of limitations started running when the insurance company learned of their "Alpha" existence. Alabama law states that, "the statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action accrues" with it being an affirmative defense.
Court: USDC Middle District of Alabama, Judge: Thompson, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv553, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition
J. Burroughs denies the industrial companies' motion for summary judgment against the promotional products company's lawsuit accusing them of scheming to sabotage and bankrupt the promotional products company. Why one of the industrial companies stopped working with the promotional products company, and whether the industrial companies purchased products made using the promotional products company's molds, is unclear, so summary judgment is not appropriate.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Burroughs, Filed On: September 18, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv11955, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition, Contract
J. Branch finds that the district court improperly ruled in favor of the competitor in an unfair competition and trademark infringement action brought by the company. The district court incorrectly found that the company could not sue because it was a nonexclusive licensee that lacked sufficient ownership rights to a nonparty manufacturer's marks. The licensing agreement between the company and the manufacturer did not bar the company from bringing a claim under the Lanham Act. The settlement agreement between the competitor and the manufacturer is not binding on licensees and therefore also does not prevent the company from suing. Vacated.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Branch, Filed On: August 22, 2023, Case #: 22-10985, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition
J. Stadtmueller finds partially in favor of the pharmaceutical company in a lawsuit it faces from a competitor alleging multiple claims, including under the Lanham Act, involving the company's false representations about its medical and probiotic products, particularly as a generic equivalent to the competitor's products. The company's motion for reconsideration of the court's previous order in part analyzing its representation that its products contain the "same" probiotic bacteria as the competitor's products is denied, as it largely goes over arguments the company has already made. The company's motion to stay the corrective letters portion of the court's injunction pending appeal is denied, and its motion to dismiss the competitor's unfair competition claim under the Act is granted without prejudice.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Stadtmueller, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv192, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition
J. McShane dismisses the business partner's unfair competition counterclaim that the boba tea shop owner breached his duty of loyalty when he opened another store about five miles away from the business partner's shop, thus harming the latter's business. The boba tea shop owner's son is the registered owner and has no duty of loyalty, and the business partner does not present facts supporting the argument that the boba tea shop owner acted as an agent of both businesses with conflicting interests.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: McShane, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: 6:22cv1488, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, unfair Competition, Business Practices