Willamette Law Online

(19 summaries)

Katherine Hall

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
U.S. v. ReichertCopyright: 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.(03-28-2014)
Washington Consulting Group, Inc. v. Raytheon Technology Services Company, LLC et al.Trade Secrets: Misappropriation was not found when movant could not provide causal link between the alleged misappropriation and the damage suffered. (03-07-2014)
Calabrese, Racek & Markos, Inc. v. RacekTrademarks: Intention to use a mark in commerce was not sufficient to prove infringement. (07-26-2013)
PC Puerto Rico LLC. v. El SmailiTrademarks: Injunctive relief was appropriate when gas stations stopped selling gas but continued to display the Texaco mark.(02-28-2013)
Yellowbook, Inc. v. BrandeberryTrademarks: 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.(02-27-2013)
Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp.Copyright: In the absence of direct evidence of a violation, the circumstantial evidence must demonstrate a reasonable possibility of access to the copyrighted work.(02-26-2013)
Rucker v. Harlequin Enterprises, LTDCopyright: 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.(02-26-2013)
Whitaker v. Stanwood Imps.Copyright: Without further circumstantial evidence, wide dissemination and third party copying is insufficient to show access for copyright infringement.(01-17-2013)
Abraham v. Alpha Chi OmegaTrademarks: Delay in registering trademark resulted in unfair prejudice.(12-06-2012)
Edsal Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Vault Brands, Inc.Trademarks: Claims for trademark infringement are not proper if the term has only been used as a descriptor, not a trademark.(11-15-2012)
Sempris, LLC v. WatsonTrade Secrets: Noncompete agreements signed by employees of a company that are later acquired remain valid.(10-22-2012)
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-RassetCopyright: 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.(09-11-2012)
Lopez v. Gap, Inc.Trademarks: TRADEMARK; UNFAIR COMPETITION (Trademark infringement was not found when marks are not sufficiently distinctive and use primarily geographic terms.) (08-02-2012)
Louis Vuitton Mallatier S.A. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.Trademarks: Trademark dilution was not found when consumers were unlikely to be confused under the Lantham Act standard. (06-15-2012)
Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc.Trademarks: 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. (06-11-2012)
WNET v. Aereo, Inc.Copyright: 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.(05-21-2012)
Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10Trade Secrets: Trade secret infringement is possible even when materials are widely distributed if the methods for compiling those materials are not.(05-01-2012)
Steak Umm v. Steak ‘Em UpTrademarks: Injunctions for trademark infringement cannot be granted if the trademarks are not likely to cause customer confusion.(04-11-2012)
McGee v. AndréCopyright: Copyright infringement can only occur when probative and substantial similarity are proven; copyright does not protect unoriginal work.(03-20-2012)