NEW YORK — Allegations by an artist that two individual defendants falsely attributed her name as the creator of an oil painting will proceed in New York federal court, according to an Oct. 2 ruling (Annamarie Trombetta v. Marie Novocin, et al., No. 18-993, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171228).
NEW YORK — A panel of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 30 found no error in a New York federal magistrate judge’s sua sponte dismissal of allegations that a convenience store infringed the “Deli Express” trademark (E.A. Sween Company v. A&M Deli Express Inc., No. 18-2998, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 29313).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — In a Sept. 27 ruling, a federal judge in Missouri rejected a lawsuit by a jewelry company that seeks a declaration that it is the rightful owner of the “Hallmark Diamonds” and “Hallmark Rings” trademarks (Hallmark Industries Inc. v. Hallmark Licensing LLC, No. 18-236, W.D. Mo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166665).
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A couple and their homebuilder won dismissal Sept. 24 of allegations of unfair competition but will face copyright claims levied in connection with their home design, a federal judge in Ohio ruled (W.H. Midwest LLC v. A.D. Baker Homes, No. 18-1387, S.D. Ohio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163108).
CINCINNATI — In reversing and remanding a lower federal court, a majority of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 25 found that an insurance policy’s “dishonest acts” exclusion does not bar coverage for a steel products producer’s lawsuit alleging that a trade association published false statements about its products (Evanston Insurance Co. v. Certified Steel Stud Association, Inc., et al., Nos.18-3406 and 3407, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28937).
ATLANTA — A Georgia federal judge’s decision to sanction two corporate officers and their company for continuing to sell the “Gorilla Gym” playset following a permanent injunction barring further use of the “Gorilla” trademark was affirmed Sept. 24 by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (PlayNation Play Systems Inc. v. Velex Corporation, et al., No. 18-12828, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28810).
HARTFORD, Conn. — Allegations that Armor All/STP Products Co. and others infringed a competitor’s trademark, engaged in false advertising and conspired to maintain a monopoly in the market for value-added automotive air conditioning (AC) recharge kits will proceed, a Connecticut federal judge ruled Sept. 23 (TSI Products Inc. v. Armor All/STP Products Company, No. 17-1131, D. Conn., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161795).
CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois on Sept. 20 held that insureds failed to comply with their insurance policy’s requirement of timely notifying the insurer of underlying claims brought by the National Hockey League, granting the insurer’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v. The Hockey Cup, LLC, et al., No. 18-8142, N.D. Ill., Eastern Div., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160278).
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on Sept. 17 held that an insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its plumbing company insured under an insurance policy’s businessowners liability coverage, reserving his ruling on whether an underlying trademark infringement suit triggers the policy’s cyber liability and data breach response coverage (Mid-Century Insurance Company v. Hunt's Plumbing & Mechanical LLC, et al., No. 19-0285, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160098).
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A federal judge in Tennessee on Sept. 13 ruled that a seller of clear orthodontic aligners has sufficiently stated allegations in support of its claims for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of state and federal law against the former employee of its business partner (SDC Financial LLC, et al. v. Martin Bremer, et al., No. 19-525, M.D. Tenn., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156806).
NEW YORK — In a Sept. 13 holding a federal judge in New York rejected allegations that E*Trade Financial Corp. infringed copyrighted elements of various videos produced and owned by an Italian entrepreneur (Gianluca Vacchi v. E*Trade Financial Corporation, No. 19-3505, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156972).
DENVER — In a Sept. 11 ruling, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that a Colorado federal judge lacked jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action seeking cancellation of trade dress covering the color pink for medical prostheses (C5 Medical Werks LLC v. CeramTec GMBH, No. 17-1173, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27361).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A defendant should not be precluded from raising defenses that were not litigated in a prior lawsuit between the same parties, an apparel company embroiled in a long-running trademark dispute argues in its Sept. 11 opening merits brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, calling a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals “defense preclusion” rule inconsistent with the principles of claim and issue preclusion (Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., No. 18-1086, U.S. Sup.).
TRENTON, N.J. — A dispute over the “ArmorTec” trademark will proceed in view of findings on Sept. 10 by a federal judge in New Jersey that adoption by EP Henry Corp. of the “ColorTech” trademark for a competing paving stone could cause consumer confusion (Cambridge Pavers Inc. v. EP Henry Corporation, No. 18-14187, D. N.J., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153971).
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — A lawsuit filed in 2017 by the City of New York that accuses a store of selling counterfeit products does not serve as a bar to new claims by the alleged counterfeiter of trespass and harassment, a New York federal judge ruled Sept. 9 (Salvatore Piccolo, et al. v. Gerald Singleton, No. 18-1324, E.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153283).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a Sept. 6 per curiam holding, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a California federal judge’s determination that consumers are unlikely to be confused by Kia Motors America Inc.’s use of “Drive Wise” in connection with its in-car advance driver assistance system (ADAS) (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kia Motors America Inc, et al., No. 18-55164, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26994).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Aug. 26 entered judgment in favor of a bar, restaurant and nightclub operator after finding that a competitor infringed on its federal trademark rights under the Lanham Act, as well as its rights under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (Avenue Hospitality Group, LLC v. Avenue Restaurant and Music Lounge, No. 19-00687, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145841).
PHOENIX — Allegations of false patent marking and false advertising in connection with nitric oxide (N-O) test strips were dismissed Sept. 4 by an Alaska federal judge, who found that a plaintiff lacks standing because the parties are not yet direct competitors in the N-O test strip market (ThermoLife International LLC v. NeoGenis Labs Inc., No. 18-2980, D. Ariz., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150457).
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on Sept. 3 granted a trademark infringement defendant summary judgment upon finding that “the use of admittedly similar logos” by a bus manufacturer and a charter flight company “is nevertheless unlikely to result in any consumer confusion” (New Flyer Industries Canada ULC, et al. v. San Juan Airlines, No. 18-299, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149689).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Contending that a split exists among the circuit courts of appeal as to what constitutes fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), a trademark holder that lost a long-running infringement suit argues to the U.S. Supreme Court in an Aug. 21 reply brief supporting its petition for certiorari that a uniform standard for considering fraud should be adopted that requires more than a finding of mere negligence (B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Industries Inc., et al., No. 19-48, U.S. Sup.).