Donald Judd was a minimalist furniture designer so I’ll leave it at that. His La Mansana tables and chairs now go for $90K and $9k respectively. The Judd Foundation, his successor in interest (he passed in 1994), asserts trade dress in the La Mansana table and corresponding chairs (see photos below and in complaint
Uncategorized
Schedule A – Ex Parte motion for preliminary injunction
CreeLED, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” Defendants.
Case No. 24-20081-Civ-Martinez/Sanchez.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida.March 8, 2024.
Don’t call a Rule 68 judgment in an infringement case an infringement judgment
If you receive a Rule 68 judgment, be careful how you crow about it.
Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is structured to motivate defendants to make settlement offers. It provides that
At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an…
Fraud on the PTO
LEDO PIZZA SYSTEM, INC. & LEDO PIZZA CARRYOUTS, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
LEDO’S INC., Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. March 7, 2024.
The defendant’s fraud claim fails even to get out of the starting blocks, because the defendant has failed to adequately establish standing to assert the claim.…
Default Judgments in TM Cases
Amazon satisfies multi-factor test for default:
AMAZON.COM INC; JL CHILDRESS CO INC, Plaintiff, v.
TANG ZHI; ET AL, Defendant.
Case No. 2:20-cv-01215-TMC-MLP.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma.
Motion for default denied wo prejudice for failure to show personal jurisdiction:
HAMMER BRAND, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
VORO INC., et al., Defendants.
Case No. 8:23-cv-01272-KKM-NHA.
United…
Distinguishing Between Equitable and Legal TM Remedies
VAN LEEUWEN ICE CREAM LLC, Plaintiff, v.
REBEL CREAMERY LLC, Defendant.
United States District Court, E.D. New York.March 11, 2024.
Show the pictures to your clients and say “this is descriptive fair use”: Solid 21 v Breitling (2d Circuit RED GOLD)
Plaintiff has been suing various wristwatch companies over the use of the term RED GOLD. Here, Breitling’s dismissal of plaintiff’s suit at summary judgment provides a road map as to how to make descriptive fair use of even an incontestable mark (and even when there were (allegedly) alternative descriptive terms available to defendant).
From the…
Post-purchase Confusion in the UK: Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc & Anor
From Stobbs summary: Recent Court of Appeal decision (Iconix v Dream Pairs, involving the Umbro ‘double diamond’ logo on footwear) which has clarified the need to take account of the potential for post-sale confusion when assessing likelihood of confusion between two marks. This case could present opportunities for brands to revisit confusion-based claims in the…
SDNY: Global Brand v Rae Dunn Design (XOXO) – Fair use could not be determined at 12b6 stage
SDNY: For purposes of a MtD, Defendant’s affirmative defenses (e.g. fair use) must be evident from the face of the complaint. Here, while defendant’s own mark prominently appeared alongside plaintiff’s mark on its packaging, whether this was fair use could not be determined at the 12b6 stage.
SDNY – Northstar v ICON re use of REBECCA MINKOFF trademark
Sub-licensee sought to continue use of trademark after transfer of trademarks to third party.
Text of Northstar v ICON