Willamette Law Online

(15 summaries)

David Bundy

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Sprint Nextel Corp. v. WelchTrademarks: A reseller may be liable for trademark infringement if the reseller uses the trademark in a way that is likely to cause the general public to think the reseller is working in conjunction with the trademark owner.(01-08-2014)
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd. P'shipCopyright: Fair use was found when a copyrighted logo was used in a limited manner in a movie about football's history. (12-17-2013)
Coach, Inc v. Pure MLK Last Stop, Inc.Trademarks: $500,000 and a permanent injunction was found to be an appropriate remedy when counterfeiters did not respond to summons. (11-04-2013)
Banxcorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp.Copyright: Interest rates were not protectable under copyright law because, as mathematical averages, they were uncopyrightable facts and because they are too short to be copyrighted.(10-17-2013)
United States V. Hanjuan JinTrade Secrets: Under the EEA, a company does not have to actually lose money from the theft of a trade secret for a person to be found guilty of stealing a trade secret. (09-28-2013)
Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLCCopyright: Fair use was found despite commercial gain largely because the commercial gain was "paltry" and the work was a parody. (08-14-2013)
McKee v. James (Unreported)Trade Secrets: Password protection on a computer alone does not constitute reasonable efforts toward maintaining the secrecy of a trade secret. (07-24-2013)
Bean v. Pearson Educ., Inc.Copyright: A structured process of requesting to use copyrighted material does not create an implied license to use those same materials without permission.(06-11-2013)
Cuidado Casero Home Health of El Paso v. Ayuda Home Health Care Services LLCTrade Secrets: When making a claim of lost profits the plaintiff must show that the lost profits are non-speculative and corroborated.(05-22-2013)
Ophthalmic Research Associates, Inc v. Sarcode CorporationTrade Secrets: "Predictability, the protection of justified expectations, and ease of adjudication" should be considered when determining which state law applies in a trade secret dispute. (05-22-2013)
Kuvedina, LLC v. Cognizant Technology SolutionsTrade Secrets: Misappropriation of trade secrets require (1) existence of a trade secret; (2)acquisition of the trade secret as a result of a confidential relationship; (3) unauthorized use of a trade secret.(05-21-2013)
B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.Trademarks: The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision was overturned because it was not an Article III court and used different factors in determining whether there was trademark infringement. (05-08-2013)
Reservoir, Inc. V. TruesdellTrademarks: The person first using the trademark was granted ownership despite the fact that the other party had filed the trademark. (04-30-2013)
Calisi v. Unified Financial Services, LLCTrade Secrets: Without specialized client information, client lists do not constitute trade secrets. (04-11-2013)
Reg Seneca, LLC v. HardenTrade Secrets: (When an employee has trouble discerning between general knowledge about his employment and trade secrets, an injunction enforcing a noncompete clause is appropriate to protect trade secrets.)(04-09-2013)