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,
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.
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
LEDO PIZZA SYSTEM, INC. & LEDO PIZZA CARRYOUTS, INC., Plaintiffs,v.LEDO’S INC., Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. March 7, 2024.
The defendant’s fraud claim fails even to get out of the starting blocks, because the defendant has failed to adequately establish standing to assert the claim.[5] A
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,
VAN LEEUWEN ICE CREAM LLC, Plaintiff, v.REBEL CREAMERY LLC, Defendant.
United States District Court, E.D. New York.March 11, 2024.
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
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
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
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.