17
Jun/16

S Ct: Text of Kirtsaeng v John Wiley on Awarding Attorney’s Fees


Footnote two is a contender for funniest Supreme Court footnote this term.

Justia’s Summary:

Kirtsaeng bought low-cost foreign edition textbooks in Thailand and resold them to students in the U.S. In 2013 the Supreme Court held that Kirtsaeng could invoke the Copyright Act’s “first-sale doctrine,” 17 U.S.C. 109(a), as a defense to the publisher’s copyright infringement claim. Kirtsaeng then sought more than $2 million in attorney’s fees from the publisher under the Act’s fee-shifting provision. The Second Circuit affirmed denial of Kirtsaeng’s application, reasoning that Wiley had taken reasonable positions during litigation. A unanimous Supreme Court vacated. When deciding whether to award attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. 505, a court should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s position, while still taking into account all other relevant circumstances. Precedent has identified several non-exclusive​ factors for courts to consider, e.g., frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness, and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence. Putting substantial weight on the reasonableness of a losing party’s position is consistent with the objectives of the Copyright Act, but courts must take into account a range of considerations beyond the reasonableness of litigating positions. Because the district court “may not have understood the full scope of its discretion,” the Court remanded for consideration of other relevant factors.



9
Sep/14

Calculation of Damages in Counterfeit Fiberglass LAMBO Kits, ND Alabama




9
Sep/14

Large Damage Award in 43(a)(1)(B) case re lead paint removal – S. Carolina


Collecting permit fees from homeowners, then not filing for the permits, is likely not compliance with ‘strictest industry standards.’



25
Aug/14

Treble Damages Against Terminated Licensee


Filed under: Damages


25
Feb/10

One Way Of Getting To $2 Million In Damages


Start with a famous mark such as ROLL ROYCE, have defendant copy it, have defendant not show up, have two plaintiffs awarded $1 million each.
Decision Rolls Royce Default

Filed under: Damages


24
Aug/09

How To Get To $2.5 Million In Damages


How Motorola was awarded $2,508,703.31 in damages in a counterfeiting case in the Southern District of NY. Discussion of statutory damages and analysis of legal fees.
Decision Motorola Damages

Filed under: Damages


13
Sep/08

Adidas' Payless Damages Reduced From $304M to $64M


FortMillTimes: “Judge Lowers Award In Payless-Adidas Lawsuit
Background here.

Filed under: Damages


7
May/08

Excerpt From Adidas Verdict – Photo Of Non-infringing Model


This is an excerpt from the verdict (see below). A ‘yes’ check indicates that the jury found for Adidas.
adidas payless non-infringing.jpg



7
May/08

Text of Adidas Payless Verdict – Photos Of Infinging Sneakers


There were approximately 290 different models of striped sneakers involved in the Adidas case. In a quick scan I only saw one model that the jury didnt’ find to be infringing. This verdict clearly suggests that Adidas ‘ trademark rights extend to two stripes and four stripes with varying placement on the shoe.

Read this doc on Scribd: adidas payless verdict


7
May/08

Adidas Wins $76.5m per Stripe Against 4 Stripe Shoe


payless 4 stripes.jpg
Oregonian coverage here.
Info Law comments here.
One colleague’s reaction: “Yikes!”
Excellent pre-trial discussion by 43(B)log, including discussion of use of opinion by trademark counsel to negate willfulness here.

Filed under: Damages