Willamette Law Online

(21 summaries)

Jonathan Phillips

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Teller v. DoggeCopyright: In order to prove a claim of copyright infringement, plaintiff must have a valid copyright and sufficiently show the defendant’s copying of original components of the work. Further, to demonstrate copying, plaintiff must show that the infringer had access to the copyrighted work and that the works at issue are substantially similar.(03-20-2014)
Integral Dev. Corp. v. TolatTrade Secrets: Under the CUTSA, a plaintiff seeking relief for misappropriation of a trade secret must show the existence of the trade secrets with sufficient and reasonable particularity.(02-24-2014)
165 Park Row, Inc. v. JHR Dev., LLCTrademarks: "The Inn at Brunswick Station" was found to cause consumer confusion and thus infringe the trademark belonging to "The Brunswick Inn," even though "The Brunswick Inn" is a strongly descriptive mark.(02-04-2014)
Diversey v. SchmidlyCopyright: A copyright infringement claim was barred when it was brought more than three years after the date on which the plaintiff should have become aware of an act of infringement, despite plaintiff's arguing a "continuing wrong" exception. (12-23-2013)
Ge Betz, Inc. v. ConradTrade Secrets: Trade secret misappropriation was found when plaintiffs alleged misappropriation with sufficient particularity and defendants could not provide evidence of properly acquiring the information. (12-03-2013)
Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Pedre Watch Co.Copyright: A permanent injunction was not granted when the plaintiff was unable to prove (i) it has suffered irreparable injury; (ii) remedies available at law are inadequate; (iii) a remedy in equity is warranted; and (iv) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.(10-21-2013)
TNS Media Research v. TRA Global, Inc.Trade Secrets: A client list may be a trade secret but one created through widespread canvassing of an obvious and highly competitive market is insufficient to warrant trade secret protection.(10-03-2013)
Excell Consumer Prods. v. Smart Candle LLCTrademarks: To satisfy the real continuity with the past test, the assignee of a trademark must maintain the quality of the goods in a manner that consumers have come to associate with the mark.(09-10-2013)
Gaines v. District of ColumbiaCopyright: Under the idea/expression dichotomy of copyright protection, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression but does not give anyone exclusive rights to ideas.(08-21-2013)
United States v. AgrawalTrade Secrets: The nexus provisions of the EEA must read to indicate that, for purposes of determining theft, a trade secret may relate to a product placed in interstate commerce without being included in that product.(08-01-2013)
Newsboys & Wesley Campbell v. Warner Bros. RecordsTrademarks: Only the registrant of a trademark or that registrant’s legal representatives has legal standing to sue for trademark infringement.(07-11-2013)
Purepecha Enters., Inc. v. El Matador Spices & Dry ChilesTrademarks: When the registrant of a trademark offers evidence of infringing sales and the infringer fails to prove its statutory burden to offer evidence of deductions, the registrant’s entitlement to profits under the Lanham Act is equal to the infringer’s gross sales.(07-08-2013)
Harris v. Mattel, Inc.Copyright: Although the ideas found in two works were similar, substantial similarity was not found because the ordinary observer would not regard the works' aesthetic appeal as the same.(06-21-2013)
NexTUNE, Inc. v. McKinneyTrade Secrets: A competitor merely reviewing documents lawfully acquired containing trade secret information is insufficient to prove that the trade secrets were intentionally acquired.(05-29-2013)
Holton v. Physician Oncology Services, LPTrade Secrets: The inevitable disclosure doctrine is not an independent claim through which a trial court may enjoin an employee from working for a competitor employer.(05-06-2013)
Language Line Services, Inc._v._Language Services Associates, Inc.Trade Secrets: The Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts all common law claims that are based on the same nucleus of facts as the claims of misappropriation and conversion.(05-06-2013)
Musket Corporation v. Star Fuel of Oklahoma, LLCTrade Secrets: A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was not granted because the court found sufficient evidence for the elements of trade secret misappropriation. (05-06-2013)
U.S. v. Wen Chyu LiuTrade Secrets: The relevant inquiry in a claim for conspiracy to steal trade secret information is whether the defendant conspired to steal information he believed to be a trade secret, rather than whether the information at issue was in fact a trade secret.(05-06-2013)
Larson v. Warner Brothers EntertainmentCopyright: An agreement that revokes copyright interest from one part and re-grants the interest in another party, in order to gain a more lucrative contract for granting of the same rights, will be upheld if it does not constitute an “agreement to the contrary” of the Copyright Act.(04-18-2013)
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Diamond Investment, Inc.Copyright: Exclusive rights to a performance are violated when someone owns a valid copyright and the copyrighted content is distributed without the owner's authorization. (04-17-2013)
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DK 547, LLCCopyright: Copyright infringement of a musical work was shown by proving a public performance, originality and authorship of work, a valid copyright under Copyright Act, claimant’s ownership of work at issue, defendant’s public performance of work, and defendant’s failure to obtain claimant’s permission for such a performance. Joint and several liability for copyright infringement for a corporate officer was determined because the officer had the right and ability to supervise the activity and direct financial interest in the infringement. (04-15-2013)