Willamette Law Online

(9 summaries)

Amanda Peterson

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Chi. Bldg. Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc. Copyright: “The Copyright Act’s statute of limitations establishes a ‘separate accrual rule’ so that ‘each infringing act starts a new limitations period.’”(10-23-2014)
Intertek United States v. AmspecTrade Secrets: Under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the information at issue was a trade secret, that it was misappropriated and that it was used in the defendant’s business.(09-11-2014)
E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Grenade Bev. LLCTrademarks: To succeed in a trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, a plaintiff must meet three basic elements: (1) distinctiveness; (2) nonfunctionality; and (3) likelihood of confusion.(08-15-2014)
Ajuba Int'l v. SahariaTrade Secrets: In a Misappropriation of Trade Secrets claim, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the specific nature of the trade secrets. Trade secret law does not protect an idea which is well known or easily ascertainable; the secret information must afford the owner a competitive advantage by having value to the owner and potential competitors; and the plaintiff must identify the trade secrets with specificity. (07-14-2014)
Lambert Corp. v. LBJC Inc.Trademarks: To prevail on a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Section 43(a), a plaintiff must prove: (1) ownership of a valid trademark; (2) use of the mark without its consent; and (3) that such use is likely to cause confusion. Even without a valid trademark registration, a trademark infringement plaintiff may still demonstrate superior rights to a trademark by establishing that it was the first user of the mark in commerce, however, such prior use must be “continuous,” and not merely “transitory.”(06-16-2014)
Mister Softee, Inc. v. TsirkosTrademarks: In a trademark infringement case, courts look to an eight-part test that determines whether customer confusion will occur due to the infringement that will damage business for the senior user. (06-05-2014)
Home Gambling Network, Inc. v. PichePatents: In patent infringement cases, the award of attorneys' fees is reserved for “exceptional cases”; if the infringement is premised on operations that are outside of the United States, the claim cannot be successful and is likely subject to an award of attorneys’ fees. (05-22-2014)
Whipps, Inc. v. Ross Valve Mfg. Co. Trade Secrets: Trade Secrets: Preliminary Injunction: An idea may still be held to be a trade secret, despite not being written down or having written design plans, if a sufficiently detailed description of the design is provided to others. (05-08-2014)
Cohen v. Versatile Studios, Inc. Copyright: Cases that hinge on whether a copyrighted work was created as a ‘work made for hire’ or as independent are ownership disputes that arise under the Copyright Act.(04-21-2014)