Willamette Law Online

(10 summaries)

Binita Singh

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Multi Time Mach., v. Amazon.comTrademarks: To prove trademark infringement, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s website uses the plaintiff’s mark confusingly when a consumer searches the defendant’s website.(02-20-2013)
Lead It Corporation v. TallapalliCopyright: The Copyright Act requires the copyright holder to register their works before suing for copyright infringement, however statutory damages and attorney's fees will be barred if the infringement of commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration. (01-30-2013)
Miller’s Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLCTrademarks: To relitigate a previous judicial determination of genericness, a purported trademark holder would need to show a drastic change in consumer perception.(12-20-2012)
Granger v. Acme Abstract Co.Copyright: In order to determine if a computer program is copyrightable and has been infringed, one must delineate between the copyrightable expression and the unprotected elements of the program.(09-27-2012)
Perfect Pearl Co. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc.Trademarks: Prior use of a mark in commerce is sufficient to earn trademark rights and trumps those rights in the marks that were later obtained by another by registering the marks. (08-14-2012)
Granger v. One Call Lender ServicesCopyright: The award of statutory damages is appropriate in the default judgment context, but a single infringer of a single work is only liable for a single amount regardless of the number of infringement acts.(07-27-2012)
Drew Estate Holding Co., LLC v. Fantasia Distribution, Inc.Trademarks: Under the "natural expansion" doctrine, a trademark owner enjoys protection over related goods that lie within the realm of the natural expansion of its business. (06-25-2012)
OgoSport, LLC v. Maranda Enterprises, LLCTrademarks: Even if a plaintiff established a protectable trade dress and a likelihood of confusion, it cannot prevail if defendant shows that trade dress is merely functional.(03-12-2012)
Yesh Music v. Lakewood ChurchCopyright: A licensing agreement does not entitle the licensee to perpetual use of the composition for post expiration productions. Also, to show that vicarious liability or infringement exists in copyright claims, the individual in question must supervise or at least have the ability to supervise the infringing activity, and the individual must have a financial interest in the allegedly infringing activity.(02-14-2012)
Innovative Legal Marketing, LLC v. Market Masters-LegalCopyright: As a general rule, copyright law does not protect scenes a faire, that are incidents, characters, or settings which, as a practical matter are indispensable or standard in the treatment of a given topic, and though an “ordinary” phrase may be quoted without fear of infringement, a copier may not quote or paraphrase the sequence of creative expression that includes such a phrase.(02-13-2012)