Willamette Law Online

(34 summaries)

Iain Armstrong

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Jackson v. OdenatTrademarks: In order to prevail on a defense of implied license the Defendant bears the burden of proving apparent authority to bind the Plaintiff. (03-24-2014)
Alicea v. Machete MusicCopyright: There is a circuit split as to what actions meet the "preregistration" requirements found in the copyright act. However, under either test, a copyright holder must show some evidence that they have either registered or commenced registration procedures before they may bring a suit for copyright infringement.(03-07-2014)
Loftness Specialized Farm Equip., Inc. v. TwiestmeyerTrade Secrets: A breach of a non-disclosure agreement alone formed the basis of an action even though the information protected by the non-disclosure agreement would not otherwise be entitled to trade secret protection.(02-11-2014)
Top Tobacco, L.P. v. Midwestern Cash & Carry, LLCTrademarks: Uncontroverted sale of counterfeit trademarked articles alone established infringement against corporate defendants but, without proof of willfulness on the part of individuals, did not establish infringement against individually named defendants.(01-22-2014)
Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLCCopyright: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision did not apply when the alleged infringer was aware of facts from which infringing activity was apparent. If awareness was derived from viewing an infringing work, the infringement must be "objectively obvious."(12-31-2013)
Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp.Trade Secrets: Publication by the Patent Office destroys any trade secret protections for the information contained in the patent application.(12-11-2013)
Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno, Ltd.Trade Secrets: An employee's duty to protect the trade secrets of his/her employer extends beyond the resignation of the employee, even when the trade secret was emailed to the employee after the effective date of resignation.(12-11-2013)
Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana BankTrademarks: The doctrine of tacking to establish trademark priority is applicable to only an "exceedingly narrow" set of circumstances. This, however, is one of them.(11-22-2013)
Raymond G. Schreiber Revocable Trust v. Estate of KnievelCopyright: When there was no "clear, signed, written transfer of ownership," there was no transfer of copyrights.(11-01-2013)
Indus. Control Repair v. McBroom Elec. Co.Trade Secrets: Customer information is not protected under the Michigan trade secrets act.(10-10-2013)
New India USA, LLC v. Vibrant Media Group, LLCTrademarks: Operating a website which is directed toward a cultural subgroup within the United States cannot alone form the basis for personal jurisdiction in Trademark suits in any state which contains a significant number of that cultural subgroup.(09-17-2013)
Am. Registry of Radiologic Technologists v. BennettCopyright: Emailing members of a exam study service the copyrighted questions found on previously administered exam constituted copyright infringement.(08-26-2013)
Core Labs LP v. Spectrum Tracer Servs.Trade Secrets: When selecting applicable law following a transfer of proceedings, the law applied is the law of the original venue. In Texas, threatened disclosure of trade secrets is irreparable injury as a matter of law. (08-07-2013)
Action Ink, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.Trademarks: Trademark ownership is established by use, not by registration and aggressive policing of the mark alone.(07-17-2013)
1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc.Trademarks: Purchasing keywords for "sponsored" links on internet search engines which contain registered marks of competitors does not alone amount to trademark infringement under the Lanham act.(07-16-2013)
Thale v. Apple Inc.Copyright: To recover "indirect profits" for copyright infringement claims in the Ninth Circuit, one must proffer some evidence linking the profits generated by the infringer to the actual act of infringement. (06-26-2013)
Sony BMG Music Entm't v. TenenbaumCopyright: A damage award of $22,500 per illegally downloaded or distributed song is not so large as to unconstitutionally violate infringer's rights to due process.(06-25-2013)
Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Viacom InternationalTrademarks: Having a licensing agreement with a 3rd party infringer is not alone sufficient to expose a trademark owner to claims of vicarious and contributory infringement.(05-17-2013)
Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros., Inc.Trademarks: Trademark use in a fictional context does not constitute infringement. (05-16-2013)
Cariou v. PrinceCopyright: Derivative works need not comment on the original work to fall under the fair use defense.(04-25-2013)
UMG Recordings., Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.Copyright: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not shield Internet file sharing services from common-law copyright infringement suits on pre February 15, 1972 recordings.(04-23-2013)
Hamin Khatib v. Sun-Times Media Group, Inc.Trade Secrets: To state a trade secrets misappropriation claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiff must claim that the misappropriated information was in fact a trade secret.(04-03-2013)
Columbia Pictures Indus. V. Gary FungCopyright: Services involved in and promoted for use in a process of reproducing copyrighted material may give rise to contributory infringement even if no product is provided to actual infringers.(03-21-2013)
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Copyright: The 'first sale' doctrine is not constrained by a geographic limitation and applies to any copyrighted work which was lawfully produced in accordance to the Copyright Act.(03-19-2013)
West Plains, L.L.C. v. Retzlaff Grain Co.Trade Secrets: Compilations of information may qualify for trade secret protection even if the information is publicly available.(02-26-2013)
Image Online Design, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & NumbersTrademarks: Stated intention to license the use of a service mark is too speculative to form the basis of an infringement action.(02-07-2013)
Blehm v. JacobsCopyright: When determining whether works are substantially similar, courts will analyse the protected expression of underlying concepts and themes – not the themes sought to be expressed.(12-27-2012)
Peters v. WestCopyright: A strong evidentiary showing of the opportunity to copy a work does not lessen the plaintiff's burden to show a significant similarity between the copyrighted and offending works.(08-20-2012)
Fishman Transducers, Inc. v. PaulTrademarks: When parties are not in direct competition, evidence linking a loss in profits to the trademark infringement is required. (07-03-2012)
Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Center for Bio-Ethical ReformCopyright: The courts look to transformative use, the amount of copyrighted material used, and the market in which the copyrighted material is used when determining whether a work is protected under “fair use.” (06-15-2012)
L.A. Printex Industries v. Aeropostale Inc.Copyright: A certificate of registration containing inaccurate information is sufficient to sustain an infringement claim, so long as the applicant was unaware of the inaccuracy, and the inaccuracy would not have caused the copyright office to reject the application. (06-13-2012)
Obodai v. Demand Media, Inc.Copyright: Conforming to the DMCA's safe harbor provision protects a service provider from committing contributory copyright infringement. (06-13-2012)
Weco Supply co. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.Trade Secrets: A “supplier/jobber" relationship does not create a duty of confidentiality.(05-25-2012)
Brigham Young Univ. v. Pfizer, Inc.Trade Secrets: Under Utah precedent, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts claims based on the unauthorized use of information, regardless of whether that information met the statutory definition of a trade secret.(03-22-2012)