CHARLESTON, S.C. — In a Feb. 5 ruling, a South Carolina federal judge rejected a prevailing trademark infringement plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of $237,824 in attorney fees, upon disagreeing with the plaintiff that the case qualifies as exceptional (SafeRack LLC v. Bullard Company, No. 17-1613, D. S.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18253).
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Chanel Inc. prevailed against the operators of several dozen websites that were offering counterfeit Chanel goods on Feb. 5, when a Florida federal judge granted its motion for default judgment and awarded it damages, injunctive relief and control over the offending websites (Chanel Inc. v. Bestaaachanel.com, et al., No. 0:18-cv-63018, S.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17846).
RICHMOND, Va. — A divided Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 4 affirmed a Virginia federal judge’s determination that the Booking.com trademark has acquired secondary meaning, as well as that regardless of who prevailed, Booking.com should reimburse the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) $51,472.53 in attorney fees (Booking.com v. Andre Iancu, Nos. 17-2458, -2459, 4th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3456).
SAN ANTONIO — A plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief on allegations that an architectural firm infringed the “Arch-Con” trademark should be denied, a Texas federal magistrate judge recommended Feb. 1 (Arch-Con Construction Company v. Archcon Architecture Ltd., et al., No. 18-821, W.D. Texas., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16941).
BOISE, Idaho — The Idaho Supreme Court on Jan. 29 affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a commercial business insurance policy’s prior publication exclusion relieves the insurer of its duty to defend its insured against an underlying trademark dispute (Scout, LLC v. Truck Insurance Exchange, et al., No. 45349, Idaho Sup., 2019 Ida. LEXIS 12).
BOSTON — A Massachusetts federal judge on Jan. 29 allowed testimony from competing experts in a dispute over whether a maker of greeting cards falsified documents in a trademark and copyright row with another card company (LovePop, Inc. v. Paper Pop Cards, Inc., No. 17-11017, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14035).
TRENTON, N.J. —A New Jersey federal judge on Jan. 28 granted summary judgment on a counterclaim seeking cancellation of two trademarks, agreeing with defendants that their cousins are not entitled to the registrations, which incorporate the last name “Anello” (Steven Anello, et al. v. VCA Sons Inc., et al., No. 13-3074, D. N.J., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13894).
CINCINNATI — In a Jan. 28 holding, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a Michigan federal judge’s grant of summary judgment to a defendant accused of trademark and patent infringement (Wesley Corporation, et al. v. Zoom T.V. Products, et al., No. 18-1646, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2785).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An August 2018 finding by the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a visual artist’s trade dress claim was preempted by the Copyright Act will stand, thanks to a denial of certiorari Jan. 22 by the U.S. Supreme Court (Bruce Munro, et al. v. Lucy Activewear Inc., et al., No. 18-615, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals correctly found that a visual artist was not entitled to trade dress protection for his artistic light display, a women’s sportswear chain asserts in a Dec. 13 brief opposing the artist’s petition for certiorari and arguing that there is no overlap between trade dress and copyright law that needs review by the court (Bruce Munro, et al. v. Lucy Activewear Inc., et al., No. 18-615, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 15 found that although a California federal judge abused his discretion in dismissing, as a sanction, allegations of trademark infringement and unfair competition, his earlier dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Larry J. Lichtenegger, et al., No. 17-16815, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1291).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Jan. 14 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found no error in a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register “Casalana” on grounds of failure to demonstrate use in commerce (In re: Siny Corp., No. 18-1077, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1136).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Jan. 9 merits respondent brief, a trademark holder tells the U.S. Supreme Court that under “extraordinary authority” in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, it was permitted to terminate a trademark license, stripping its former licensee’s rights to continue use of the once-licensed marks (Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, No. 17-1657, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board erred in affirming an examiner’s refusal to register “Guild Mortgage Company” because the ruling was premised on an inadequate analysis of the factors for confusion, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded Jan. 14 (In re: Guild Mortgage Company, No. 17-2620, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1131).
NEW YORK — Allegations that four defendants marketed and sold a plastic beer stein that replicates the National Hockey League (NHL) Stanley Cup trophy will proceed in New York, a federal judge ruled Jan. 8 (National Hockey League v. The Hockey Cup LLC, et al., No. 18-6597, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3411).
NEW YORK — In a Jan. 3 holding, a New York federal judge agreed with a defendant that it is protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, as established in Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 136-39 (1961), and United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 669-70 (1965), from allegations it violated Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, when it filed a citizen petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Elysium Health Inc. v. Chromadex Inc., No. 17-7394, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1871).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its orders list issued on Jan. 4, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will decide the constitutionality of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which bars registration of “immoral and scandalous” trademarks (Andrei Iancu v. Erik Brunetti, No. 18-302, U.S. Sup.).
LOS ANGELES — Allegations of trade dress and copyright infringement levied against Dollar General Corp. in connection with sprinkler toys were rejected on summary judgment on Dec. 28 by a California federal judge, who found that a plaintiff is unable to demonstrate ownership of the intellectual property at issue (Swift Harvest USA LLC v. Dollar General Corporation, No. 17-8644, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217845).
NEW YORK — In a Jan. 2 ruling, a New York federal judge found that allegations of patent and trademark infringement, as well as federal unfair competition, should proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (NextEngine Inc. v. NextEngine Inc., No. 17-9785, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 584).
NEW YORK — In a Jan. 2 report, a New York federal magistrate judge recommended an award of $6.2 million on behalf of four publishers that accuse 15 individuals and one corporate defendant of copyright and trademark infringement in connection with their online sales of counterfeit textbooks (Elsevier Inc., et al. v. Siew Yee Chew, et al., No. 17-6225, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196).