Intellectual Property News

Case Summaries

Intellectual Property

[07/02] Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GBMH & Co.
In a trademark infringement action involving the enzyme-based dietary supplement Wobenzym, the District Court's preliminary injunction requiring Defendant to cease selling a dietary supplement is affirmed in part, where Defendant did not meet its burden to prove that Plaintiff ceased production of the supplement; but vacated in part, where a District Court must find a substantial risk of danger to the public or other special circumstances in order to enter an interlocutory order recalling a product in a trademark infringement case.

[07/02] Marshak v. Treadwell
In an action related to a trademark dispute involving the singing group "The Drifters," district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the court did not err in issuing contempt findings against the plaintiffs as they reassembled plaintiff's business under different names in order to evade the injunction issued by the district court judge; 2) the court erred in holding co-plaintiff Revels in contempt, as defendant never actually moved for him to be held in contempt, and he thus never obtained notice and a separate hearing; and 3) the court properly awarded defendant attorney's fees, but abused its discretion in refusing to impose any remedy other than attorney's fees, as plaintiff continued to evade the injunction and infringe the trademark. The matter is remanded for an order of accounting of plaintiff's profits.

[07/01] In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board judgment is affirmed where: 1) the board properly affirmed the rejection of petitioner's trademark application, as the Shinnecock Indian Nation is an institution and thus falls within the protection of 15 U.S.C. sec. 1052(a); 2) the USPTO's refusal to register his marks was not a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, as the petitioner was provided a full opportunity to prosecute his applications and to appeal the examining attorney's final rejections to the Board; 3) the refusal did not violate petitioner's equal protection rights, as the Board and the examining attorney had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying registration; and 4) the refusal to register the mark was not racial discrimination in violation of the United Nations' International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as petitioner failed to establish any racial discrimination, and he has no private right of action under the treaty.

[06/26] Cadkin v. Loose
In an appeal from an order granting attorney's fees to Defendant following Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of their copyright lawsuit, the order is reversed where, because Plaintiffs remained free to refile their copyright claims, they were not "prevailing parties" and thus were not entitled to attorney's fees.

[06/26] Garber v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange
In a patent infringement action, district court order denying plaintiff's motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) is reversed where the joint stipulation between the parties was filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) and therefore divested the court of jurisdiction to enter any subsequent orders.

More...

Trade Secrets

[06/15] FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Parrish
In an appeal from an attorney's fee order issued as a sanction for bringing a trade secret action in bad faith, the order is affirmed where: 1) there was evidence that Plaintiffs had an anticompetitive motive; and 2) the action was brought on a theory of "inevitable disclosure" not recognized by California law.

[05/29] CDI Energy Servs., Inc. v. West River Pumps, Inc.
In a action alleging breach of loyalty, trade-secret misappropriation, and business interference, district court judgment denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolving the temporary restraining order is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in finding that plaintiff failed to prove that defendants took trade-secret information or that plaintiff took reasonable steps to protect its trade secrets, and thus there is little justification for granting a preliminary injunction regarding the trade-secret claim; and 2) the court did not err in concluding that while plaintiff had a likelihood of success on its claims for statutory breach-of-loyalty, injunctive relief was not warranted, as the balancing of factors, such as irreparable harm, balance of harms, and the public interest favored defendants.

[05/11] M.D. Mark, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp.
In an action for breach of seismic data license agreements, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) the District Court did not err in holding that the agreements could not be transferred without Plaintiff's approval; and 2) the jury's finding that Defendant improperly disclosed trade secrets was not against the weight of the evidence.

[04/20] SunCoke En'gy Inc. v. MAN Ferrostaal A.G.
In an action seeking the return of trade secret information, the dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed, where Defendant's dealings with Plaintiff in Tennessee and jurisdiction over a highly integrated group of transactions should be adjudicated as a whole and not piecemeal.

[04/16] World Fin. Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Fin. Serv., Inc.
In an action involving trade secrets and confidential information, trial court's denial of defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint filed against them by plaintiff is affirmed where defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to show plaintiff's complaint was based on defendant's protected activity arising out of acts done in furtherance of their free speech rights.

More...