Willamette Law Online

(13 summaries)

Amy Smith

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Bedford Auto Dealers Assoc. v. Mercedes Benz of North OlmstedTrademarks: Even though Plaintiff may have registered term as a trademark, if the court finds that the term is generic then the term will not be worthy of the protection of a trademark.(03-08-2012)
Ray Communications, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc.Trademarks: Laches may bar relief, but not automatically; a showing of “plus” factors must be presented for laches to bar relief.(03-08-2012)
Own Your Power Communications, Inc. v. Oprah WinfreyTrademarks: A trademark phrase can be used by Plaintiff in a non-trademark descriptive sense and thus will not infringe on Defendant's trademark phrase.(03-06-2012)
Roger Miller Music Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLCCopyright: If an assignee becomes a registered owner of the copyright and renewal rights in a song while the author is alive and before the rights have vested, then the author cannot will those rights to someone else upon his death.(02-22-2012)
Bohnsack v. VarcoTrade Secrets: If the plaintiff filed for a patent on the defendant’s invention, this is enough to constitute use of the defendant’s trade secret.(01-23-2012)
A To Z Machining Service, LLC v. National Storm Shelter, LLCCopyright: Plaintiff must have a valid copyright registration before filing for copyright infringement; preregistration is not a registered work within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. §411.)(12-29-2011)
Universal Furniture International, Inc. v. Paul FrankelCopyright: To be found personally liable for a violation of the Lanham Act plaintiff must show that defendant, themselves, falsely designated the origin of plaintiff’s property.(12-29-2011)
Fancaster, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.Trademarks: In order to prevail in a trademark infringement case, the plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to prove a likelihood of confusion; it is not enough to just allege that there is an infringement.(12-22-2011)
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLCCopyright: if a provider of web hosting service has no actual knowledge or awareness of copyright infringement and the plaintiff never specifies what content is copyright infringing, the provider will be able to claim safe harbor under statute 512.(12-20-2011)
Olem Shoe Corp. v. Washington Shoe Co.Trademarks: If a member of the public is not able to identify the plaintiff’s products with the plaintiff, then even if the defendant creates identical products they would not cause confusion for the public.(12-01-2011)
American Express Marketing and Development Corp. and American Express Travel Related Services Co. Inc. v. Black Card LLCTrademarks: Even if a plaintiff has a registered trademark, the trademark can be cancelled if it is found that the mark is not inherently distinctive and lacks secondary meaning.(11-17-2011)
Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.Copyright: COPYRIGHT; MISUSE (It is not misuse when a copyright holder limits the right to use their work.)(09-28-2011)
AK Steel Corp. v. Donald EarleyTrade Secrets: When a plaintiff makes a claim of trade secret infringement they must specifically identify what the trade secret information is; conclusory statements about trade secret infringement will be put aside by the court.(08-19-2011)