The 7th Circuit decision in Sunstar, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co. is interesting in two ways: it provides some insight into how one company is managing the Japanese market, and also provides a little education on Japanese trademark licensing law. Alberto-Culver, owner of the VO5 family of marks, wasn’t having any success in the Japanese...
Read more →Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., first blogged here, demonstrated what can go wrong with ownership of patents within a corporate enterprise. As a refresher, in Mars the defendant, “Coinco,” successfully attacked the chain of title of the patents in suit. Mars had transferred ownership of the patents between family members during the lawsuit,...
Read more →Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, provides a cause of action for a “registrant” of a trademark. Section 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, defines a “registrant” as including “legal representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns.” So one only has a cause of action under Section 32 if one is the registrant...
Read more →An appropriate decision for football season; the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has affirmed, in an antitrust case, that the exclusive licensing of all professional football teams marks to one vendor is not a violation of the Sherman Act. NFL Properties is an unincorporated organization of 32 separately owned teams. Each team...
Read more →Iris Corp. Berhard v. U.S. is a fairly routine analysis of an exclusive licensee’s standing to sue for patent infringement. Of course, an exclusive licensee only has standing if the patentee has conveyed all substantial rights in the patent to the licensee. There’s a bit of a twist here, though; the patent owner had...
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.