July 7, 2020: Updated to add footnote 2. Section 32 of the Lanham Act is for infringement of registered trademarks. The section says that the liability for infringement is to the “registrant.” That category undisputedly includes a successor-in-interest, such as an assignee. A minority of courts have also held that “registrant” encompasses an exclusive...
Read more →Here are the facts: Ness Stewart Irvine was a patentee. Irvine assigned his patents-in-suit to InterAD Technologies, LLC. InterAD assigned them to Zeroclick, LLC (“Zeroclick I”), the plaintiff, a Texas entity. Zeroclick I sued Apple for patent infringement. Erich Spangenberg, listed as the “governing person,” terminated the Zeroclick I entity.1 Non-party Granicus IP, LLC...
Read more →Burbank High School has show choirs, which are choirs that combine choral singing with some choreographed steps. If you watched the TV show Glee you’ve seen it; in fact the court says that Burbank High School inspired the TV show. Brett Carroll is the vocal music director at the school and the Burbank show...
Read more →Do you need to own a trademark to succeed in an infringement claim? Not necessarily. The plaintiff, I&I Hair Corporation, now owns the registration for the trademark EZBRAID. Except that it originally didn’t; the registration was owned by Eunja Son, a principal of the plaintiff. I&I Hair sued the defendant, Beauty Plus Trading Co.,...
Read more →When reviewing a settlement agreement, I often ponder the parts where it says something like “Party B agrees not to infringe the trademark in the future.” The agreement doesn’t need it; whether you say it or not Party B isn’t allowed to break the law. I suppose adding the language gives you a breach...
Read more →Plaintiff Janssen Biotech had a fundamental structural problem with an agreement. The document was called an “Employee Secrecy Agreement,” but in addition to imposing duties of confidentiality on its employees the agreement also served as an employee invention assignment agreement, as is commonly, if not universally, done. Janssen’s structural problem was in the definition...
Read more →Moreno v. Pro Boxing Supplies, Inc. is a precedential decision and, IMHO, clearly contrary to the Board’s controlling precedent. Opposer and petitioner Julie Moreno is the exclusive US licensee of the unregistered trademark CASANOVA for boxing equipment: Applicant and Registrant Pro Boxing Supplies is the owner of a registration for CASANOVA in standard character...
Read more →What a confusing ownership case (which perhaps means that the wise reader stops right here). Errors on every level, at the end of the day unrecoverable. The parties are Paradise Biryani, Inc. (PBI), Paradise Biryani Express, Inc. (Express), and Biryani Point Paradise LLC (PBB) on one side, and Paradise Hospitality Group, LLC (PHG) on...
Read more →This is a bit of a “duh” case from the Federal Circuit, a nonprecedential decision. The only surprising part of it is that the trial court, Judge Sparks in the Western District of Texas, didn’t impose even greater sanctions. It was quite a show of generosity. The patent-in-suit has a short chain of title;...
Read more →To “plead yourself out of court” is to state facts in a complaint that mean you have already lost. Something like, in a personal injury case, saying “I rear-ended him because he stopped at a red light” would do it. In Reynolds v. Banks it’s not quite exactly that, but pretty darn close. Sandra...
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.