Justia summary: Skechers challenged the district court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction prohibiting it from selling shoes that allegedly infringe and dilute adidas America, Inc.’s Stan Smith trade dress and Three-Stripe trademark. The panel affirmed in part, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction as to adidas’s claim that Skechers’s Onix shoe infringes on adidas’s unregistered trade dress of its Stan Smith shoe. However, the panel reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction as to adidas’s claim that Skechers’s Cross Court shoe infringes and dilutes its Three-Stripe mark.
My colleagues Mel Garner, Rob Isackson, Lauren Emerson and I co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of the New York IP Law Association, filed in a Federal Circuit appea, Syngenta v Willowood. We argued that FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, does not preclude application of the Copyright Act, and thus a copyright claim could conceivably be brought against a pesticide label. We attached illustrations of potentially original, distinctive ways of rendering dead bugs.
Law firm McAllister Olivarius sues a client for unpaid bills. Client regsiters the domain name McallisterOlivariusTruth.com. Law firm sues for cybersquatting. Client moves to dismiss. Motion to dismiss denied.
Lindsay Lohan’s New York right of publicity suit against the publishers of Grand Theft Auto, arising from use of avatar Lohan asserted was a ‘portrait’ of her, dismissed by NY Court of Appeals:
“.. . we conclude that the amended complaint was properly dismissed because the
artistic renderings are indistinct, satirical representations of the style, look, and persona of
a modern, beach-going young woman that are not reasonably identifiable as plaintiff . . .”