NEW ORLEANS — An award of royalty damages on behalf of a trademark infringement plaintiff was vacated March 16 by the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Streamline Production Systems Inc. v. Streamline Manufacturing Inc., No. 16-20046, 5th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4708).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A manufacturer and distributor of firearms argues in a Feb. 27 brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should decline review on whether a district court’s refusal to allow amendment of a proposed pretrial order to assert a profits claim was an abuse of discretion (Clyde Armory Inc. v. FN Herstal S.A., No. 16-936, U.S. Sup.).
INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana federal judge on Feb. 27 granted a gas station and convenience store operator’s motion for summary judgment on Noble Roman Inc.’s claims for violation of the Lanham Act, saying that Noble Roman’s delay in taking action to protect its trademarks led to the defendant’s continued infringement (Noble Roman’s Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distributing Co., No. 1:14-cv-1734, S.D. Ind., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27022).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — In a patent and trademark infringement dispute between competitors in the fitness and exercise equipment industry, a California federal judge on March 6 refused to exclude expert testimony on lost profits damages and royalty damages (Fitness Anywhere LLC v. WOSS Enterprises LLC, No. 14-01725, N.D. Calif.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31505).
SHERMAN, Texas — A Texas federal judge on March 6 granted Dickey’s Barbecue Pit Inc.’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief in a dispute with former franchisees who are alleged to have kept selling Dickey’s trademarked products after a franchise agreement was terminated, saying that the barbecue franchisor is likely to prevail in its trademark infringement suit (Dickey’s Barbecue Pit Inc., et al. v. Celebrated Affairs Catering Inc., et al., No. 4:17-cv-00127, E.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30814).
AUSTIN, Texas — Efforts by a defendant to obtain judgment on the pleadings on allegations that it committed false advertising and trademark infringement should be denied, a Texas federal magistrate judge recommended March 3 (University Loft Company v. Blue Furniture Solutions LLC, No. 15-826, W.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30767).
NEW ORLEANS — A Texas federal judge properly ruled that fraud upon the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) does not automatically render a case exceptional, thereby triggering an award of attorney fees, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 1 (Stacey Vetter v. Christine McAtee, No. 15-20575, 5th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3698).
NEW YORK — In a Feb. 28 ruling, a New York federal magistrate judge not only found a copyright and trademark defendant’s discovery responses to be noncompliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, he also took the opportunity to criticize attorneys throughout the district for continually failing to comply with December 2015 amendments to the rule (James H. Fischer v. Stephen T. Forrest Jr., et al., No. 1:14-cv-01304 and 1:14-cv-01307, S.D. N.Y., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28102).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dispute over entitlement to a treble damages award for attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a medical technology company argues in a Feb. 15 brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no evidence that its alleged false advertising harmed competition or that it “tainted” the market by selling a flawed product (Retractable Technologies Inc. and Thomas Shaw v. Becton Dickinson & Co., No. 16-953, U.S. Sup.).
TRENTON, N.J. — Citing the dates upon which a plaintiff and defendant first began using a disputed trademark, a New Jersey federal judge on Feb. 24 denied the plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief (Watch Yo Mouth LLC v. Denbigh and Associates LLC, d/b/a Skyler Innovations, No. 17-717, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26258).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Feb. 21 ordered a car manufacturer to show cause as to why its claims for violation of California's unfair competition law and trademark infringement should not be transferred to another venue (BMW of North America, LLC, et al. v. Michael Chambers, et al., No. 17-0846, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24096).
DETROIT — A request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring the host of a training program on tinnitus care from providing participants with a “Tinnitus Care Provider Certificate” upon completion of the program was rejected Feb. 21 by a Michigan federal judge, who found instead that the plaintiff lacks standing to levy claims of false advertising under Section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act (Academy of Doctors of Audiology v. International Hearing Society, No. 16-13839, E.D. Mich., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23652).
GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge in Maryland on Feb. 21 excluded the testimony of an expert in a trademark infringement lawsuit on grounds that his opinions were “non-substantiated proclamations on the ultimate questions of law and he lacked the requisite training education or experience in the relevant field of proffered expertise” (JFJ Toys Inc., et al. v. Sears Holdings Corporation, et al., No. 14-3527, D. Md.).
TAMPA, Fla.— A Florida federal judge on Feb. 16 granted judgment in favor of a boat maker, finding that customer information did not constitute a trade secret and that a reasonable jury could not find that it infringed on another company's trade dress when it manufactured an allegedly similar boat (Yellowfin Yachts Inc. v. Barker Boatworks, LLC, et al., No. 8:15-cv-990, M.D. Fla.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21745).
NEW YORK — A request for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 by a prevailing copyright and trade dress infringement defendant should be denied, according to a Feb. 13 ruling by a New York federal magistrate judge, who found that plaintiff’s counsel did not commit fraud upon by failing to quickly correct perjured depositions (Crown Awards Inc. v. Trophy Depot Inc., No. 15-1178, S.D. N.Y., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20393).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an alumni association from trademark infringement claims in connection with its use of the words “alumni association” in conjunction with the university’s name, the alumni association argues in its Jan. 30 reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, because it cannot identify who its members are without using the university’s name (Alumni Association of New Jersey Institute of Technology v. New Jersey Institute of Technology, No. 16-798, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 8 reply brief, Belmora LLC argues to the U.S. Supreme Court that courts “generally recognized that the principle of territoriality imposed a real limit on who could sue for cancellation of a trademark or unfair competition under the Lanham Act” (Belmora LLC and Jamie Belcastro v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, et al., No. 16-548, U.S. Sup.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal judge on Feb. 10 granted an exclusive licensee's motion to remand its claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims related to the alleged unauthorized use of a trademark, finding that it did not waive its right to remand the action (SWC Inc. v. Elite Promo Inc., No. 16-cv-07071, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19513).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A software company in a Jan. 18 petition for writ of certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is bound by B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Industries Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1293 (2015), “in a trademark declaratory action brought solely to relitigate the likelihood of confusion issue after the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board had already rendered a final judgment determining likelihood of confusion” (M2 Software Inc. v. M2 Technology Inc., No. 16-909, U.S. Sup.).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Feb. 7 refused to dismiss a hair product company's claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and intentional interference with contractual relations, finding that a retailer had notice that it was potentially selling unauthorized products online and that it showed that a valid contract exists (Unite Eurotherapy Inc. v. Walgreens Co., et al., No. 16-cv-01706, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18116).