Case Summaries
Intellectual Property
[06/30] Greenberg v. Nat'l Geographic Society
In a lawsuit filed against National Geographic and Mindscape alleging plaintiff's copyrights were infringed by defendants' CD-ROM collection of the monthly magazine which included his photographs, the circuit court finds that: 1) publisher-defendant is privileged to reproduce and distribute digital CD-ROMs of the magazine under the "revision" prong of section 201(c) of the Copyright Act; and 2) despite reproductions in a different medium or enhanced digital search functions, the publisher's privilege continues as long as the original context of a collective work is not destroyed.
More...
Copyright
[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.
More...
Trademark
[06/18] Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC
In a trademark infringement dispute wherein the district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from using its design mark and using the phrase "duck tour" in its trade name, judgment is reversed and remanded where the district court: 1) committed clear error by finding the phrase "duck tour" non-generic, and thereafter accorded it excessive weight in conducting its likelihood of confusion analysis on defendant's trade name; and 2) clearly erred in finding a likelihood of confusion between parties' design marks wherein the greatest similarity between them, an image of a cartoon duck in water, was of minimal significance due to its highly descriptive nature.
More...
Patent
[06/30] Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage
Where Lanham Act and state tort claims are based on a defendant's representation that someone infringed his patent, a plaintiff must show that defendant's representation was made in bad faith. In a suit against a French company that makes hose clamp pliers and its lawyers, brought by plaintiffs who sold similar pliers in the U.S. and alleged antitrust violations and malicious prosecution in a prior patent suit brought by defendant, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant-maker did not act in good faith or that it did not provide its law firm with facts in its possession that it "knew or should have known would defeat" the lawsuit; 2) defendant-firm could reasonably conclude that defendant-maker's infringement case was "tenable"; 3) Lanham Act and state tort law claims failed as plaintiffs did not present any evidence that defendants drafted or forwarded certain letters in bad faith; and 4) antitrust claims were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
More...
Trade Secrets
[06/13] Natural Answers, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
In a trademark infringement case involving claims against defendants for the advertisement of certain health products, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the record unequivocally demonstrated that plaintiff did not own a valid trademark interest for claims of infringement brought under the Lanham Act; 2) plaintiff did not suffer injury for prudential standing to assert a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act; and 3) in light of plaintiff's insufficient interest and lack of judicial standing, plaintiff's claims also failed under alternative common law theories which require elements plaintiff could not prove.
More...
Trade Dress
[05/29] UT Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. and Research
In an action claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) trademark infringement and unfair competition claims failed as plaintiff did not show that "Utah Lighthouse" was protectable, that defendant's use was in connection with any goods or services, and that defendant was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of goods sold on its online bookstore; 2) defendant lacked a bad faith intent to profit from the use of plaintiff's trademark in several domain names under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA); and 3) defendant's website met safe harbor conditions of the ACPA since it was a parody.
More...
|
