22
Nov/13

Trade Dress In Amusement Park Rides


zamperla jump around

sambaballoon_main

Plaintiff sells amusement park rides. Above we see two of plaintiff’s rides, JUMP AROUND and the SAMBA BALLOON. Plaintiff accuses defendant of copying its trade dress (as well as advertising materials). Plaintiff has previously obtained an injunction against Defendant.

zamperla



22
Nov/13

Pop a Shot v Pop Shot


pop a shot ad


pop a shot



21
Nov/13

Ninth Circuit in Seven Arts on Copyright Statute of Limitations


The Copyright Act has a three year statute of limitations, however it is determined on a ‘rolling’ basis for normal copyright claims. The Court may consider acts that occurred up to three years prior to the date of filing the complaint. However, a dispute over copyright ownership between the parties occurs only once – suit must be brought within three years of the repudiation of plaintiff’s ownership.

seven arts copyright



21
Nov/13

NODOR v NODOR for pet products.


nodor

Plaintiff alleges Hartz Mountian infringes NODOR mark for pet products.


travellers umbrella



21
Nov/13

Travelers Umbrella Logo v Legal & General Umbrella Logo


travelers-pending-logolegal--general-group-logo

Travelers Insurance sues Legal & General Insurance for use of umbrella logo. There had been coexistence agreement(s) between the parties over the years.

travellers umbrella



20
Nov/13

DJ: CRISPAW v CRISTAL


I don’t think any field is as litigated as dog chew toys that resemble luxury products. Here, CRISPAW v CRISTAL. This is not the first time this plaintiff brought a DJ against this defendant.

crispaw cristal



18
Nov/13

PEAK6 INVESTMENTS v PEAK 9 CAPITAL


peak6 v peak 9



14
Nov/13

SOLACE v SOLACE


I’m curious about count 4, forgery.

solace trademark



14
Nov/13

SPRINKLES v SPRINKLES


sprinkles v sprinkles



7
Nov/13

MAXIM v MAXIM


Maxim started as a men’s magazine and has become a ‘lifestyle’ brand. Defendant used MAXIM for anti-perspirant wipes for people with hyperhidrosis, a condition causing excessive sweating. Four years ago, defendant began selling scented wipes, and adopted a logo and packaging that, allegedly, is evocative of Maxim’s image. Maxim itself is moving into fragrance and cosmetic, and in the course of surveying the market, learned of defendant’s packaging. It brought a prelim.

Held: Under the heightened Salinger standard, Maxim failed to shop irreparable harm, or more, precisely, if there was irreparable harm, it occurred four years ago. Also, defendant’s target market, people who sweat a lot, was very small.

maxim v corad