Intellectual Property (24 summaries)
Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt.
TRADEMARKS: Federal Jurisdiction: [9th Circuit Court of Appeals] A trademark cancellation claim standing alone does not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Federal Jurisdiction
Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc. v. Handi-Foil Corp.
Tacking is a question of law; the party seeking to tack bears the burden of proving that the current trademark and the registered trademark create a continuing commercial impression.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Abandonment
Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. Godaddy.com, Inc.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not include a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc.
Likelihood of irreparable harm had to be established, rather than presumed, by the plaintiff seeking injunctive relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Injunctive Relief
Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Fair use was found when Google digitally reproduced millions of copyrighted books, allowed library project partners to download copies of books, and made snippets of the digital reproductions available to computer searches.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Fair Use
In re City of Houston
A local government entity may not obtain a federal trademark registration for the entity’s official insignia
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Government
TufAmerica, Inc. v. Diamond
The injury rule is the appropriate rubric to determine when a claim accrues under the Copyright Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , CLAIM ACCRUAL UNDER 17 U.S.C. § 507(b)
Coach, Inc. v. Goodfellow
Flea market operator may be contributorily liable for trademark infringement of vendors if the operator knew or had reason to know of the infringement yet continues to facilitate the infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Contributory Infringement
Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey
Use "as a mark" is not a threshold requirement for a Lanham Act claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Wilson v. New Palace Casino, LLC
Protection of works of art under VARA does not extend vicariously to derivative works.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Engenium Solutions v. Symphonic Techs.
In a claim of literal infringement of software a court uses a filtration-comparison analysis rather than the abstraction-filtration-comparison test used in non-literal software copyright claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Hallford v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.
In order to determine substantial similarity between a television show and a screenplay the court compares the stories' plot and sequence, characters, themes, setting and pace, and total concept and feel.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
National Football Scouting, Inc. v. Rang
A numerical expression representing an opinion of a player’s likelihood of succeeding in the NFL is copyrightable.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Wilden Pump and Engineering LLC v. JDA Global LLC
Part numbers are not source identifiers when a prefix is used to differentiate between makers of similar parts
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
The Authors Guild v. Hathitrust
Digitizing a book and putting it into a format possible for a print-disabled person to access it is sufficiently transformative for a fair-use defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Hearthware, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons
Similarities in infomercials do not constitute copyright infringement when the similarities are standard components of infomercials.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.
Evidence of fame that postdates an intent-to-use application is relevant to a showing of a likelihood of confusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC
A trustee’s rejection of a contract does not abrogate a trademark license.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
T. Marzetti Company v. Roskam Baking Company
In testing for genericness, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals gauge whether ”the public perceives the term primarily as the designation of the article."
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Beerntsen Candies, Inc. v. Beerntsen’s Confectionary, Inc.
Surname rule applies even after the name no longer gives information about the owner of the business.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc.
TRADEMARK; POST-SALE CONFUSION (Post-sale confusion does not result in a “misdirected purchase” but a “purchase intended to confuse.")
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10
Copyright registration obtained more than five years after publication does not constitute prima facie evidence of valid copyright ownership. Transfer of rights must be accompanied by a written conveyance or a later written confirmation of transference.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Harley v. Nesby
Circumstantial evidence of access plus substantial similarities can show actual copying
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
U.S. v. Nosal
The phrase “exceeds authorized” in the CFAA is limited to access restrictions, and does not extend to use restrictions.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets