Marcel and Lucky litigated use of the GET LUCKY and LUCKY marks three times. The first lawsuit, in 2001, resulted in a release. The second lawsuit, in 2005, revealed in early motion practice that the parties disagreed as to the scope of the release. However, Lucky did not assert its interpretation of the release as
Routt v. Amazon. com
Review of 9th Circuit © vicarious liability cases
http://t.co/stOvhcn5sL
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) September 4, 2014
Sixth Circuit discussion of, inter alia, award of attorneys fees under the Lanham Act. Discussion of case by Silicon Valley Media Law Blog here.
Andretti v. Borla Performance Industries, civ 04-1835 (6th Circuit, October 21, 2005).
Louis Vuitton brought a trademark, trade dress and related torts action against Burlington Coat Factory, for selling a handbag that, Burlington conceded, ‘brought to mind’ LV’s Murakami Multicolore handbag. The District Court judge denied LV’s motion for preliminary relief, relying in part on the observation that consumers would not be confused in side-by-side comparisons of
“In this Circuit, we have today adopted a test for nominative fair use in which a court will pose three questions: (1) Is the use of the plaintiff’s mark necessary to describe both plaintiff’s product or service and defendaant’s product or service? (2) Is only so much of the plaintiff’s mark used as is necessary