var docstoc_docid=”163858796″;var docstoc_title=”pop a shot”;var docstoc_urltitle=”pop a shot”; pop a shot –
Ninth Circuit in Seven Arts on Copyright Statute of Limitations
The Copyright Act has a three year statute of limitations, however it is determined on a ‘rolling’ basis for normal copyright claims. The Court may consider acts that occurred up to three years prior to the date of filing the complaint. However, a dispute over copyright ownership between the parties occurs only once – suit must be brought within three years of the repudiation of plaintiff’s ownership.
seven arts copyright
var docstoc_docid=”163802288″;var docstoc_title=”seven arts copyright”;var docstoc_urltitle=”seven arts copyright”;
NODOR v NODOR for pet products.
Plaintiff alleges Hartz Mountian infringes NODOR mark for pet products.
var docstoc_docid=”163777523″;var docstoc_title=”travellers umbrella”;var docstoc_urltitle=”travellers umbrella”; travellers umbrella –
Travelers Umbrella Logo v Legal & General Umbrella Logo
Travelers Insurance sues Legal & General Insurance for use of umbrella logo. There had been coexistence agreement(s) between the parties over the years.
travellers umbrella
var docstoc_docid=”163777523″;var docstoc_title=”travellers umbrella”;var docstoc_urltitle=”travellers umbrella”;
DJ: CRISPAW v CRISTAL
I don’t think any field is as litigated as dog chew toys that resemble luxury products. Here, CRISPAW v CRISTAL. This is not the first time this plaintiff brought a DJ against this defendant.
crispaw cristal
var docstoc_docid=”163666335″;var docstoc_title=”crispaw cristal”;var docstoc_urltitle=”crispaw cristal”;
PEAK6 INVESTMENTS v PEAK 9 CAPITAL
peak6 v peak 9
var docstoc_docid=”163553012″;var docstoc_title=”peak6 v peak 9″;var docstoc_urltitle=”peak6 v peak 9″;
SOLACE v SOLACE
I’m curious about count 4, forgery.
solace trademark
var docstoc_docid=”163458831″;var docstoc_title=”solace trademark”;var docstoc_urltitle=”solace trademark”;
SPRINKLES v SPRINKLES
sprinkles v sprinkles
var docstoc_docid=”163458522″;var docstoc_title=”sprinkles v sprinkles”;var docstoc_urltitle=”sprinkles v sprinkles”;
MAXIM v MAXIM
Maxim started as a men’s magazine and has become a ‘lifestyle’ brand. Defendant used MAXIM for anti-perspirant wipes for people with hyperhidrosis, a condition causing excessive sweating. Four years ago, defendant began selling scented wipes, and adopted a logo and packaging that, allegedly, is evocative of Maxim’s image. Maxim itself is moving into fragrance and cosmetic, and in the course of surveying the market, learned of defendant’s packaging. It brought a prelim.
Held: Under the heightened Salinger standard, Maxim failed to shop irreparable harm, or more, precisely, if there was irreparable harm, it occurred four years ago. Also, defendant’s target market, people who sweat a lot, was very small.
maxim v corad
var docstoc_docid=”163214360″;var docstoc_title=”maxim v corad”;var docstoc_urltitle=”maxim v corad”;
DJ re CLORALEX v CLOROX
Cloralex brings DJ action regarding Clorox’ protests. Note use of graphics in paragraphs 27 to 32, to illustrate the ‘crowded field.’ Note paragraphs 39 to 61 to illustrate the length of the acquiescence.
cloratex v clorox dj
var docstoc_docid=”163190202″;var docstoc_title=”cloratex v clorox dj”;var docstoc_urltitle=”cloratex v clorox dj”;





