Perplexity v Perplexity: default judgement
PERPLEXITY SOLVED SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PERPLEXITY AI, INC., Defendant. PERPLEXITY AI, INC., Counterclaimant-Plaintiff,v.PERPLEXITY SOLVED SOLUTIONS, INC., Counterclaim-Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. California.January 23, 2026.
The final Eitel factor typically weighs against default judgment because it favors a decision on the merits. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. “However,
Trump filed a defamation claim against the NY Times and Times reporters on Monday (text of complaint in Trump v New York Times Company, et. al. , 8:25-cv-02487 (MD Fla September 15, 2025)
Today, Judge Steven Merryday, citing the Fed Rule 8 requirement that complaints are to be short and plain statements of the claims,
The New York Times published three articles about Trump in the run-up to the ’24 election. Two Times reporters also published a book: “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.”
Trump has now brought a $15 Billion defamation suit against the Times and the publisher of the
AL INFINITY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HERSCHEL SPALTER, ISSER BOYARSKY, DOES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees,CROWN CELL INC., Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee, WESTVIEW INDUSTRIES, INC., Third-Party-Defendant. 24-1412, (Second Circuit July 15, 2025)
District Court’s Error on Authorization and Burden of Proof:
◦ The district court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants because it found that AL Infinity had failed to
Schedule A defendant (SAD) anti-counterfeiting lawsuits tend to be filed in the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Florida. Judge Ranjan, noting an “uptick in such cases” in the W.D. Penn (home to the city of Pittsburgh) issued a “re-examination” of how they are procedurally administered. The court’s six guidelines are very
SYSCO MACHINERY CORPORATION, a Taiwan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DCS USA CORPORATION, d/b/a Dorey Converting Systems, a North Carolina corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 24-1675. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. July 9, 2025
“Yet one of the trade secret definitions Sysco used in its complaint includes “the Copyrighted Works,” a defined term that encompasses at
The Board’s conclusion—that a consumer would understand the YUCATAN SHRIMP mark to convey information about the dish offered at Mr. White’s restaurant—is supported by substantial evidence.
The Scotts Co. v The Procter & Gamble Co., 2:24-cv-4199 (S.D. Ohio June 27, 2025)
Miracle-Gro has an incontestable registration for a green and yellow rectangle depicted below (the cross-hatching being the Trademark Office color-designation code our tm lawyer ancestors labored under when designating colors in trademark applications):
Miracle-Gro sells a lot of plant
DI Reed v. Joi Marshall; Tonya Harris, aka Tonya Kelly; Myracle Hollowway, 24-20198, (5th Cir. July 2, 2025)
“Critical to resolving this dispute is understanding that Reed, Marshall, and Harris entered into joint ownership of the JADE mark—that is, each individual owns a complete interest in the mark. Joint ownership of a mark has two interconnected
Approximately 80% of Schedule A Defendant (“SAD”) counterfeiting suits are brought in the Northern District of Illinois. The name refers to the captioned name of the defendants – usually “The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.”
SAD litigations have been a topic of controversy in recent years. Plaintiffs may make aggressive assertions