Amazon satisfies multi-factor test for default:
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:
Case No. 8:23-cv-01272-KKM-NHA.
United
United States District Court, E.D. New York.March 11, 2024.
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
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: 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.
Sub-licensee sought to continue use of trademark after transfer of trademarks to third party.
Text of Northstar v ICON
This could be an important story for brand professionals. County star Luke Combs won a $250K copyright judgment against an ailing fan. Now, the fan says she didn’t know about the suit (sic), and he says he didn’t know about the suit (sic)
If you’ve been following U.S. TM and copyright litigation trends, then you
From the decision:
The main issues in this appeal are governed by the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023). Applying Jack Daniel’s, we conclude that Vans is likely to prevail in arguing that MSCHF’s Wavy Baby shoes used Vans’ marks
Question presented:
Whether a seller whose products ship nationwide is
subject to personal jurisdiction in every forum into which
even one of its products is shipped.
Factual background from petition:
Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Arizona and is in the business of
selling health and wellness