US v Westchester re Housing Consent Decree


Off-White c/o Virgil Abloh v Paige re Diagonal Marks

off white paige

This could be an interesting case. Plaintiff uses diagonal marks as a decorative element (See top) but also as a trademark (see left image in the side-by-side). Defendant has logo registrations for diagonal marks. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s sole use now is on the stitching on the back pocket of jeans (See right image in side-by-side above).

Plaintiff Off-White’s website here

Defendant Paige’s website here.


ARCTIX Skiwear v ARCTIX Insulated Containers

arctix pants

arctix insulator


iFit and icon v ifitperformance complaint

ifit at ces


Adobe v themacspecialists

EBay seller allegedly sells infringing ADOBE spftware by loading it onto (alleged) Apple computers, and selling the computers on eBay.


Recommended Reading: Letter from Wallace Global Fund to Morgan Lewis re: Trump Conflicts of Interest

This letter from the co-chairman of the Wallace Global Fund, resigning as a client of the Morgan Lewis firm, because of the manner of Morgan Lewis representing Trump in regard to conflicts of interest, justifies close reading.


What The Most Expensive Mattresses In The World Look Like

hasten black plaid versushasten blue plaid versus


According to this, plaintiff Hasten sells the most expensive mattress in the world, and defendant Kluft sells the most expensive US mattress.

Hastens has registrations for the plaid pattern.

More pictures of expensive mattresses here.




pawn father



John Mayer v Jane Doe and John Doe

john mayer tour

John Mayer is playing Madison Square Garden next week and his management company received a ‘John Doe’ order.

A previous discussion of John Doe orders here.


Text of SCOTUS Decision in Expressions Hair Design v NY (NY Surcharge/Discount Speech Case)


“….Section 518 prohibits the pricing regime petitioners wish to employ. Section 518 does not define “surcharge.” Relying on the term’s ordinary meaning, the Court of Appeals concluded that a merchant imposes a surcharge when he posts a single sticker price and charges a credit card user more than that sticker price. This Court “generally accord[s] great deference to the interpretation and application of state law by the courts of appeals.” Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U. S. 469, 484, n. 13. Because the interpretation of the Court of Appeals is not “clearly wrong,” Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U. S. 491, 500, n. 9, this Court follows that interpretation. Pp. 6–8.

Section 518 regulates speech. The Court of Appeals concluded that §518 posed no First Amendment problem because price controls regulate conduct, not speech. Section 518, however, is not like a typical price regulation, which simply regulates the amount a store can collect. The law tells merchants nothing about the amount they are allowed to collect from a cash or credit card payer. Instead, it regulates how sellers may communicate their prices. In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves, §518 regulates speech. Because the Court of Appeals concluded otherwise, it did not determine whether §518 survives First Amendment scrutiny. On remand the Court of Appeals should analyze §518 as a speech regulation….”