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
Case No. 24-20081-Civ-Martinez/Sanchez.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida.March 8, 2024.
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
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.
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