An Insurer’s Duty to Defend A Trademark Suit
The Trademark Blog
by Marty Schwimmer
22h ago
Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. Am., No. 23-1328 (8th Cir. 2024) Justia: Dexon Computer, Inc., a reseller of computer networking products, was sued by Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technologies, Inc. for federal trademark infringement and counterfeiting. The complaint alleged trademark infringements between 2006 and 2010, and thirty-five acts of infringement between 2015 and 2020. Dexon sought defense from Travelers Property Casualty Company of America under a liability policy it had purchased from Travelers. Travelers denied coverage and a duty to defend, arguing that all the ..read more
Visit website
Are Kim Kardashian’s Table and Chairs Like A $20 Rolex?
The Trademark Blog
by Marty Schwimmer
1M ago
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, link at bottom). Kim Kardashian employed a designer for her new SKKN BY KIM offices. Knowing of Ms. Kardashian’s interest in minimalism, the designer proposed that he fabricate tables and chairs “in the style of Donald Judd.” Kardashian obtained two sets of table and chairs (price ..read more
Visit website
Schedule A – Ex Parte motion for preliminary injunction
The Trademark Blog
by Marty Schwimmer
2M ago
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 ..read more
Visit website
Don’t call a Rule 68 judgment in an infringement case an infringement judgment
The Trademark Blog
by Marty Schwimmer
2M ago
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 opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter ..read more
Visit website
Default Judgments in TM Cases
The Trademark Blog
by Marty Schwimmer
2M ago
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 States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.March 8, 2024 ..read more
Visit website
Distinguishing Between Equitable and Legal TM Remedies
The Trademark Blog
by Marty Schwimmer
2M ago
VAN LEEUWEN ICE CREAM LLC, Plaintiff, v. REBEL CREAMERY LLC, Defendant. No. 21-CV-2356 (EK) (JRC). United States District Court, E.D. New York.March 11, 2024 ..read more
Visit website
Show the pictures to your clients and say “this is descriptive fair use”: Solid 21 v Breitling (2d Circuit RED GOLD)
The Trademark Blog
by Marty Schwimmer
2M ago
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 decision: “Left untouched, pure gold is yellow. With the addition of silver, gold takes on a whiter tone; copper creates a reddish or pinkish color . . . Throughout the twentieth century, many newspapers, advertisements, magazines, textbooks, and othe ..read more
Visit website
Post-purchase Confusion in the UK: Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc & Anor
The Trademark Blog
by Marty Schwimmer
2M ago
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 context of lookalikes which has been a challenge for many years, given that the assessment must take account of people seeing the lookalike post sale, not just at the time of purchase in the Aldi or Lidl store. Text of decision in ..read more
Visit website
Fifth Circuit: When is Theseus’ ROLEX watch no longer a ROLEX watch?
The Trademark Blog
by Marty Schwimmer
4M ago
A Champion Spark plug re-conditioned goods case involving ROLEX watch parts. From the Fifth Circuit decision: This is a trademark infringement dispute involving allegations of counterfeit and infringing use of Rolex’s marks by BeckerTime. Rolex is a luxury watch seller with a legally protectable interest in numerous trademarks. BeckerTime sells primarily decades-old preowned watches containing Rolex branded parts. The at-issue watches in this case are watches sold by BeckerTime that are identified as “Genuine Rolex,” but contain both Rolex and non-Rolex parts. The watches specifically conside ..read more
Visit website
SDNY: Global Brand v Rae Dunn Design (XOXO) – Fair use could not be determined at 12b6 stage
The Trademark Blog
by Marty Schwimmer
4M ago
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. text of decision in Global Brand v Rae Dunn Design, 23-CV-1644 (DEH) January 9, 2024 ..read more
Visit website

Follow The Trademark Blog on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR