Willamette Law Online

(24 summaries)

Adam Arthur

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt.Trademarks: TRADEMARKS: Federal Jurisdiction: [9th Circuit Court of Appeals] A trademark cancellation claim standing alone does not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.(02-28-2014)
Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc. v. Handi-Foil Corp.Trademarks: 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.(02-27-2014)
Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. Godaddy.com, Inc.Trademarks: The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not include a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting.(12-04-2013)
Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc.Trademarks: Likelihood of irreparable harm had to be established, rather than presumed, by the plaintiff seeking injunctive relief.(12-02-2013)
Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc.Copyright: 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.(11-14-2013)
In re City of HoustonTrademarks: A local government entity may not obtain a federal trademark registration for the entity’s official insignia(10-01-2013)
TufAmerica, Inc. v. DiamondCopyright: The injury rule is the appropriate rubric to determine when a claim accrues under the Copyright Act.(09-10-2013)
Coach, Inc. v. GoodfellowTrademarks: 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.(05-31-2013)
Kelly-Brown v. WinfreyTrademarks: Use "as a mark" is not a threshold requirement for a Lanham Act claim.(05-31-2013)
Wilson v. New Palace Casino, LLCCopyright: Protection of works of art under VARA does not extend vicariously to derivative works.(03-07-2013)
Engenium Solutions v. Symphonic Techs.Copyright: 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.(02-15-2013)
Hallford v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.Copyright: 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.(02-13-2013)
National Football Scouting, Inc. v. RangCopyright: A numerical expression representing an opinion of a player’s likelihood of succeeding in the NFL is copyrightable.(12-13-2012)
Wilden Pump and Engineering LLC v. JDA Global LLCTrademarks: Part numbers are not source identifiers when a prefix is used to differentiate between makers of similar parts(10-29-2012)
The Authors Guild v. HathitrustCopyright: 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.(10-10-2012)
Hearthware, Inc. v. E. Mishan & SonsCopyright: Similarities in infomercials do not constitute copyright infringement when the similarities are standard components of infomercials.(08-10-2012)
Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.Trademarks: Evidence of fame that postdates an intent-to-use application is relevant to a showing of a likelihood of confusion.(07-09-2012)
Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLCTrademarks: A trustee’s rejection of a contract does not abrogate a trademark license.(07-09-2012)
T. Marzetti Company v. Roskam Baking CompanyTrade Secrets: In testing for genericness, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals gauge whether ”the public perceives the term primarily as the designation of the article."(05-25-2012)
Beerntsen Candies, Inc. v. Beerntsen’s Confectionary, Inc.Trademarks: Surname rule applies even after the name no longer gives information about the owner of the business.(05-24-2012)
Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc.Trademarks: TRADEMARK; POST-SALE CONFUSION (Post-sale confusion does not result in a “misdirected purchase” but a “purchase intended to confuse.")(05-21-2012)
Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10Copyright: 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.(05-01-2012)
Harley v. NesbyCopyright: Circumstantial evidence of access plus substantial similarities can show actual copying(04-30-2012)
U.S. v. NosalTrade Secrets: The phrase “exceeds authorized” in the CFAA is limited to access restrictions, and does not extend to use restrictions.(04-10-2012)