ORLANDO, Fla. — A declaratory judgment defendant and copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement counterclaimant partly prevailed Oct. 18 before a Florida federal magistrate judge, who agreed to strike various affirmative defenses raised in response to the counterclaims (Systematic Home Staging LLC v. MHM Professional Staging LLC, No. 17-1327, M.D. Fla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172036).
SEATTLE — Even though a patent infringement case was recently transferred from a California federal court, a Washington federal judge on Oct. 17 found that he would maintain jurisdiction over an inventor’s claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and refused to dismiss the claim (Elliot Kremerman v. Open Source Steel, LLC, et al., No. 2:17-cv-953, W.D. Wash., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171735).
ATLANTA — A Florida federal judge’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction barring an infringement defendant from using the “HealthPrint” trademark was affirmed Oct. 17 by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that evidence of actual confusion is lacking in the case (Superior Consulting Services Inc. v. Shaklee Corporation, No. 17-11210, 11th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20265).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal judge did not err in dismissing an infringement action because the patents in suit are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 16 (Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde Inc., No. 16-1728, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Oct. 16 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in which two men asserted that the term “google” has become generic and, thus, is no longer entitled to trademark protection (David Elliott, et al. v. Google Inc., No. 17-258, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In an Oct. 6 reply brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a small tech company argues that a $2 million attorney fee award against it was inappropriate and “create[s] a terrible precedent” because it was merely defending its “Dropbox” trademark against a larger company (Dropbox Inc. v. Thru Inc., No. 17-15078, 9th Cir.).
CHICAGO — A company has failed to show that its trade secrets misappropriation, trademark infringement, breach of contract and other claims against its former business partner are plausible on their face and, thus, dismissal of those claims is warranted, the former business partner argues in an Oct. 10 motion to dismiss filed in Illinois federal court (Mighty Deer Lick Inc., d/b/a Mighty Deer Lick Sweet Apple Inc., v. Morton Salt Inc., No. 17-5875, N.D. Ill.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Citing an inability by a copyright, patent and trade dress infringement plaintiff to serve a copy of its complaint on two defendants, a California federal judge on Oct. 6 found “good cause” to allow service by publication (Rain Design Inc. v. Spinido Inc., et al., No. 17-3681, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166415).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An appeal by pro se plaintiffs of a dismissal by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims of his allegations that the U.S. government committed patent and trademark infringement was turned away on Oct. 6 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that the patent claims were untimely and that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over the trademark portion of the case (John Sacchetti v. United States, et al., No. 17-1484, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19530).
SAN FRANCISCO — A street artist’s limited liability company argues in an Oct. 6 brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a trial court’s unclean hands judgment against it over registrations of the “Life is Beautiful” trademark failed to account for the fact that errors in the registrations were due to innocent mistakes, not fraud (Amusement Art LLC v. Life is Beautiful LLC, et al., No. 17-55045, 9th Cir.).
TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida federal judge on Oct. 4 entered judgment in favor of an insurer in a “personal and advertising injury” coverage dispute, finding that the policy’s intellectual property exclusion bars coverage because all of the underlying causes of action were dependent on the insured’s infringement of a trademark (Land's End at Sunset Beach Community Association, Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Co., No. 17-1740, M.D. Fla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163457).
ATLANTA — A Georgia federal judge’s grant of summary judgment on behalf of a service mark infringement defendant was reversed and remanded Oct. 3 by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which deemed controlling a 1975 case that extended protection for federally registered service marks to goods, beyond the area of registration listed in a service mark certificate (Savannah College of Art and Design v. Sportswear Inc., No. 15-13830, 11th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19168).
DALLAS — Continued use by the Urban League of Greater Dallas and North Central Texas Inc. (ULGD) of the “Urban League” trademark on social media and online after the National Union League Inc. (NUL) stripped ULGD of its affiliate status represents infringement, a Texas federal judge ruled Sept. 29 (National Urban League Inc. v. Urban League of Greater Dallas and North Central Texas Inc., No. 15-3617, N.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160608).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Oct. 2 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a DJ’s petition for certiorari over whether a likelihood of confusion determination in a trademark suit should be made by a court or a jury, letting stand a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that found no evidence of confusion (Lee Jason Kibler v. Robert Bryson Hall II, et al., No. 16-1365, U.S. Sup., 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4841).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. (LV) won’t have the opportunity to present arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court that a parody tote bag maker violated the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA); the high court denied the luxury goods maker’s petition for certiorari in its Oct. 2 order list (Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. My Other Bag Inc., No. 17-72, U.S. Sup., 2017 U.S. LEXIS 5936).
CHICAGO — A magistrate judge in an Illinois federal court on Sept. 27 ordered a tobacco company to produce documents regarding the design of its rolling papers that are in the possession of one of its French subsidiaries in a trademark infringement countersuit after finding that French law does not entirely preempt the company making those documents available for discovery (Republic Technologies LLC, et al. v. BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP, No. 16 3401, N.D. Ill., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158986).
SAN FRANCISCO — A maker of pho soup base products tells the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a Sept. 20 brief that a trial court erred in issuing judgment against it in a trademark dispute with a competing pho maker, arguing that its “Cot” marks are not descriptive and have acquired secondary meaning (Quoc Viet Foods Inc. v. VV Foods LLC, et al., No. 17-55331 and 17-55742, 9th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Google Inc. on Sept. 14 waived its right to file an opposition to a petition for certiorari in which two men assert that the term “google” has become generic and, thus, is no longer entitled to trademark protection (David Elliott, et al. v. Google Inc., No. 17-258, U.S. Sup.).
BATON ROUGE, La. — A glass pipe maker on Sept. 21 filed suit in Louisiana federal court, claiming that a tobacco shop sold counterfeit versions of its pipe and used its trademarked brand without its permission (SREAM Inc. v. Tine Forte Carville, No. 3:17-cv-00667, M.D. La.).
LOS ANGELES — Efforts by a defendant to obtain dismissal of allegations of copyright, trademark and design patent infringement stemming from the sale of luxury candy were unsuccessful Sept. 25, when a California federal judge deemed the allegations adequately pleaded (Sugarfina Inc. v. Sweet Pete’s LLC, No. 17-4456, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156711).