Adam Arthur

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