TRENTON, N.J. — In a Nov. 24 holding, a federal judge in New Jersey said allegations that a corporate defendant infringed the copyrighted table pad protectors and piano covers of a competing family business should proceed (Internet Products LLC, et al. v. LLJ Enterprises Inc., et al., No. 18-15421, D. N.J., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220090).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a Nov. 23 holding, a federal magistrate judge in California agreed with YouTube LLC that allegations that it contributed to trademark infringement when it failed to take down a cryptocurrency scam quickly enough must be dismissed (Ripple Labs Inc., et al. v. YouTube LLC, No. 20-2747, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218207).
NEW YORK — In a Nov. 19 ruling, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Energizer Holdings Inc. on allegations that it infringed the “Black Ice” trademark in connection with a competing car air freshener (Car-Freshener Corporation, et al. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-2750, 2nd Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 36339).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Nov. 20 granted in part an income tax franchisor’s motion for default judgment, ruling that while the plaintiff established claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, trademark infringement and false designation of origin, the franchisor was unable to establish liability for trademark dilution and is not entitled to damages and attorney fees (JTH Tax Inc., et al. v. Pawanmeet Sawahney, No. 19-4035, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217977).
DENVER — In a Nov. 23 order, a federal judge in Colorado deemed a defendant entitled to $75,413.50 in attorney fees, despite a July jury verdict that it infringed the “Altigen” trademark (Altigen Communications Inc. v. CTI Communications LLC, et al., No. 19-488, D. Colo., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218616).
TRENTON, N.J. — In a pair of opinions issued Nov. 17, a federal judge in New Jersey deemed erroneous his earlier determination that a plaintiff’s trade dress is functional and awarded the plaintiff $29,903 in attorney fees (Sundesa LLC v. Tejarah International Inc., No. 20-2609, D. N.J., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214906).
SHERMAN, Texas — A defendant that won dismissal with prejudice of allegations that it infringed the copyright and trademark of a system for displaying the results of a personality assessment tool was awarded costs Nov. 17 by a federal judge in Texas, but not attorney fees (CoreClarity Inc. v. Gallup Inc., No. 20-601, E.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214265).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Russian man who was accused of copyright violations for his operation of two stream-ripping websites filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 12, seeking guidance on the nature of contacts necessary to confer U.S. jurisdiction over foreign website operators when there has been no purposeful direction of infringing behavior at a forum state (Tofig Kurbanov v. UMG Recordings Inc., et al., No. 20-503, U.S. Sup.).
ATLANTA — In an Oct. 29 holding, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a Florida federal judge’s dismissal with prejudice of a copyright and trademark case for lack of prosecution was an abuse of discretion because the judge earlier told the plaintiff that dismissal would be without prejudice (The Lasswell Foundation for Learning and Laughter Inc., et al. v. Timothy Schwartz, No. 20-10263, 11th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34195).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Nov. 9 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will not review findings by the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that no naked license existed with regard to the “Lawn Managers” trademark used by a former couple and their two competing lawn care companies (Progressive Lawn Managers Inc. v. Lawn Managers Inc., No. 20-421, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An examining attorney’s determination that two box designs for electric cables and wires are unprotectable as functional, later upheld by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, was proper, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Nov. 5 (In re: Reelex Packaging Solutions Inc., No. 20-1282, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 35083).
CHICAGO — Plaintiffs asserting that a competitor used registered and unregistered trademarks without permission won partial preliminary injunctive relief Oct. 29, when an Illinois federal judge agreed that a website — since deactivated — contained false and misleading statements (Holbrook Manufacturing LLC, et al. v. Rhyno Manufacturing Inc., et al., No. 20-5940, N.D. Ill., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201695).
SALT LAKE CITY — In an Oct. 27 order, a federal magistrate judge in Utah rejected a defendant’s bid to stay a trademark infringement action while it awaits a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on the validity of the disputed mark (Ampersand Avenue LLC v. Vanilla Bay Inc., No. 19-68, D. Utah, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200132).
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on Oct. 27 granted summary judgment to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on allegations by a veteran’s advocacy group that the agency infringed the “Vet360” and “Veteran 360” trademarks (Rick Collins, et al. v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 19-867, S.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199895).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Six amicus curiae briefs were filed Oct. 19 by trade associations and trademark holders urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. in a dispute over the standard for determining infringement and a likelihood of confusion when a trademark or trade dress is used in a commercial parody context (Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, No. 20-365, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In an Oct. 26 holding, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by a federal judge in Oregon to set a bond of $225,000 in a prolonged, previously remanded trademark dispute over use of “Yogi” and “Yogi Tea” (Bibiji Inderjit Kaur Puri v. East West Tea Company LLC, No. 20-35056, 9th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33637).
SAN FRANCISCO — A Washington federal judge’s award of damages for breach of contract and trademark infringement in a dispute over footwear does not represent an impermissible double recovery for the trademark owner, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 26 (S3 Holding LLC, et al. v. Seattle Pacific Industries Inc., No. 19-36096, 9th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33640).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Cancellation by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the “Sprout” trademark was upheld Oct. 27 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found no abuse of discretion in the board’s entry of default against the trademark owner as a sanction for litigation misconduct (Corcamore LLC v. SFM LLC, No. 19-1526, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33803).
DETROIT — A federal judge in Michigan on Oct. 22 cleared the way for two copyright and trademark infringement plaintiffs to serve a copy of their complaint via email to defendants purportedly located in Pakistan (Versah LLC, et al. v. Ul Amin Industries, et al., No. 20-12657, E.D. Mich., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195922).
ATLANTA — A Georgia federal judge’s determination that Gorilla Glue Co. did not infringe or dilute the trade dress of a competitor was reversed and remanded Oct. 20 by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that disputed evidence was not weighed in favor of the trade dress owner (J-B Weld Company v. Gorilla Glue Company, No. 18-14975, 11th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33064).