Intellectual Property (19 summaries)
U.S. v. Reichert
A sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 was proper because defendant had skills in the area of circumvention technology that “[m]ost persons of average ability” with “a minimum of difficulty” could not replicate.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , DCMA
Washington Consulting Group, Inc. v. Raytheon Technology Services Company, LLC et al.
Misappropriation was not found when movant could not provide causal link between the alleged misappropriation and the damage suffered.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
Calabrese, Racek & Markos, Inc. v. Racek
Intention to use a mark in commerce was not sufficient to prove infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
PC Puerto Rico LLC. v. El Smaili
Injunctive relief was appropriate when gas stations stopped selling gas but continued to display the Texaco mark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Yellowbook, Inc. v. Brandeberry
If a trademark is owned in both a personal and corporate capacity, sale of the corporate interest in the mark does not mean it can be used in business by the seller.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp.
In the absence of direct evidence of a violation, the circumstantial evidence must demonstrate a reasonable possibility of access to the copyrighted work.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Rucker v. Harlequin Enterprises, LTD
Copyright violations will not be found when the only similarities between competing romance novels are generic tropes and character traits commonly used in the industry.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Whitaker v. Stanwood Imps.
Without further circumstantial evidence, wide dissemination and third party copying is insufficient to show access for copyright infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega
Delay in registering trademark resulted in unfair prejudice.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Edsal Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Vault Brands, Inc.
Claims for trademark infringement are not proper if the term has only been used as a descriptor, not a trademark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Sempris, LLC v. Watson
Noncompete agreements signed by employees of a company that are later acquired remain valid.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset
Record companies are not entitled to clarification of the Copyright Act without a Art. III case or controversy; Copyright infringement includes making media available to be distributed as well as actual distribution.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Lopez v. Gap, Inc.
TRADEMARK; UNFAIR COMPETITION (Trademark infringement was not found when marks are not sufficiently distinctive and use primarily geographic terms.)
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Louis Vuitton Mallatier S.A. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
Trademark dilution was not found when consumers were unlikely to be confused under the Lantham Act standard.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc.
Rights to a trademark were not upheld when there was an ambiguous agreement and First Amendment rights did not outweigh public interest in free expression.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
WNET v. Aereo, Inc.
The Copyright Act is preempted by state law when the material is privately broadcasted if it is not already protected and is different from a copyright claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10
Trade secret infringement is possible even when materials are widely distributed if the methods for compiling those materials are not.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Steak Umm v. Steak ‘Em Up
Injunctions for trademark infringement cannot be granted if the trademarks are not likely to cause customer confusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
McGee v. André
Copyright infringement can only occur when probative and substantial similarity are proven; copyright does not protect unoriginal work.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright