Katherine Hall

Intellectual Property (19 summaries)

U.S. v. Reichert

A sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 was proper because defendant had skills in the area of circumvention technology that “[m]ost persons of average ability” with “a minimum of difficulty” could not replicate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , DCMA

Washington Consulting Group, Inc. v. Raytheon Technology Services Company, LLC et al.

Misappropriation was not found when movant could not provide causal link between the alleged misappropriation and the damage suffered.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Misappropriation

Calabrese, Racek & Markos, Inc. v. Racek

Intention to use a mark in commerce was not sufficient to prove infringement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Infringement

PC Puerto Rico LLC. v. El Smaili

Injunctive relief was appropriate when gas stations stopped selling gas but continued to display the Texaco mark.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Yellowbook, Inc. v. Brandeberry

If a trademark is owned in both a personal and corporate capacity, sale of the corporate interest in the mark does not mean it can be used in business by the seller.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp.

In the absence of direct evidence of a violation, the circumstantial evidence must demonstrate a reasonable possibility of access to the copyrighted work.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Rucker v. Harlequin Enterprises, LTD

Copyright violations will not be found when the only similarities between competing romance novels are generic tropes and character traits commonly used in the industry.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Whitaker v. Stanwood Imps.

Without further circumstantial evidence, wide dissemination and third party copying is insufficient to show access for copyright infringement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega

Delay in registering trademark resulted in unfair prejudice.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Edsal Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Vault Brands, Inc.

Claims for trademark infringement are not proper if the term has only been used as a descriptor, not a trademark.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Sempris, LLC v. Watson

Noncompete agreements signed by employees of a company that are later acquired remain valid.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset

Record companies are not entitled to clarification of the Copyright Act without a Art. III case or controversy; Copyright infringement includes making media available to be distributed as well as actual distribution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Lopez v. Gap, Inc.

TRADEMARK; UNFAIR COMPETITION (Trademark infringement was not found when marks are not sufficiently distinctive and use primarily geographic terms.)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Louis Vuitton Mallatier S.A. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.

Trademark dilution was not found when consumers were unlikely to be confused under the Lantham Act standard.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc.

Rights to a trademark were not upheld when there was an ambiguous agreement and First Amendment rights did not outweigh public interest in free expression.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

WNET v. Aereo, Inc.

The Copyright Act is preempted by state law when the material is privately broadcasted if it is not already protected and is different from a copyright claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10

Trade secret infringement is possible even when materials are widely distributed if the methods for compiling those materials are not.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets

Steak Umm v. Steak ‘Em Up

Injunctions for trademark infringement cannot be granted if the trademarks are not likely to cause customer confusion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

McGee v. André

Copyright infringement can only occur when probative and substantial similarity are proven; copyright does not protect unoriginal work.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Back to Top