Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., No. 15-3885 (2d Cir. 2018)
Justia: Fox filed suit against TVEyes for copyright infringement after TVEyes, a media company that continuously records the audiovisual content of more than 1,400 television and radio channels, enabled its clients to watch Fox’s programming. The Second Circuit held that…
Kim v. Kimm, No. 16-2944 (2d Cir. 2018)
Justia: Plaintiff filed suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq., challenging the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants. In this case, plaintiff alleged that defendants were members of two enterprises that conspired to sue plaintiff for…
Lucky Brands v Marcel Fashion SCOTUS Blog page
D. Ohio
Buzz Seating, Inc. v. Encore Seating, Inc., No. 16-cv-1131 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 16, 2017)
Rebecca Tushnet on Buzz Seating v Encore Seating
State University of New York v Fox., 492 U.S. 469 (1989) (in determining whether speech is commercial or noncommercial under Bolger, is the noncommercial and commercial inextricably intertwined)
Because the Board erred by holding that: (1) a multi-color
mark can never be inherently distinctive, and (2) product
packaging marks that employ color cannot be inherently
distinctive in the absence of a well-defined peripheral
shape or border, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Loeb and Loeb commentary on Stouffer
District court makes up a new, worse test for TM claims against noncommercial speech
[embeddoc url=”https://www.schwimmerlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/833/2020/04/stouffer-v-nat-geo-d-colo-decision-1.pdf” download=”all”]Application of Rogers v Grimaldi Test
Application of ‘inextricable intertwined’ test
[embeddoc url=”https://www.schwimmerlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/833/2020/04/Facenda-v-NFL-Films-Inc1-1.pdf” download=”all”]