Posts Tagged ‘Lanham Act’

Tweets – Decisions Released on Dec. 18, 2009

Monday, December 21st, 2009

Trade Identity
Forum-shopping
Sixth Circuit
Medison America, Inc. v. Preferred Medical Systems, LLC
2007-6470, 2008-5325
USDC WD Tennessee

On summary judgment, did the district court err by awarding defendant its litigation costs and dismissing the Korean plaintiff’s Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1), action which alleged defendant falsely told prospective customers in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee that plaintiff was unable to service its ultrasound equipment due to bankruptcy where, after twenty-two months of litigation, plaintiff had filed a substantially identical action in Tennessee state court and then attempted to amend its complaint to strip the district court of federal jurisdiction? (J. Kethledge opinion)

Download Stored Opinion

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Forum-shopping, Trade Identity | Comments Off

Tweets – Decisions Released on Dec. 3, 2009

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

Trade Identity
Second Circuit
Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc.
2008-3331
USDC SD New York

Do the defendant’s unregistered trademarks CHARBUCKS BLEND and MISTER CHARBUCKS for very dark roasted coffee products infringe, dilute by blurring or otherwise violate the trade identity rights of plaintiff global coffee chain under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125 and 1127, New York Gen. Bus. Law § 360-l and New York common law?

Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Trade Identity | Comments Off

Tweets – Decisions Released on Nov. 16, 2009

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Domain Names
Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Ninth Circuit
Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc.
2008-35001
USDC WD Washington

Did a bench trial judgment properly obtain, and was the court’s analysis regarding trademark distinctiveness sound, where a notorious cybersquatter had been found liable under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86, and various Washington common law doctrines for having displayed plaintiff’s Georgia state service mark VERICHECK as part of defendant’s registered domain name, vericheck.com, in connection with his pay-per-click website that did not offer any goods or services?

Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Cyberpiracy, Domain Names | Comments Off

Tweets – Decisions Released on October 29, 2009

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

Trade Identity
Seventh Circuit
Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc.
2009-1438, -1462, -1601
USDC ED Wisconsin

Was the district court judge correct to dismiss without prejudice a Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) action pending the outcome of a United States Food and Drug Administration decision as to whether generic drug labels and package inserts that display “Rx only” and “a prescription only laxative” for polyethylene glycol 3350, which is not necessarily dispensed prescription-only, had violated the agency’s strictures against mislabeling and thus the Lanham Act as well? (J. Posner)

Download Stored Opinion

Tags: ,
Posted in Trade Identity | Comments Off