Trademark Law Briefs

a summary of recent 9th Circuit trademark decisions

Have an opinion about the case? Your comments are welcome!

Google not violating the Lanham Act with Adwords

March 4th, 2010

Jurin v. Google, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18208 (E.D. Cal., 2010)

Plaintiff sued Defendant (Google), over its Adwords keyword suggestion tool which suggests Plaintiff’s trademarked product name as a keyword for Adword pay-per-click advertising to Plaintiff’s competitors.  The court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss on several of the causes of action, including Lanham act claims. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

US Supreme Court rules on constructive termination of franchises

March 3rd, 2010

Mac’s Shell Service, Inc., et al. v. Shell Oil Products Co. LLC, et al.,  2010 U.S. LEXIS 2203

While this is not a trademark case per se, it touches on some trademark issues.  Several Shell franchises sued the Shell franchisor from changing terms in its agreement that signficantly increased the franchisees rent.  The franchisees renewed under the new terms and sued under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) for constructive termination/nonrenewal.  The Court held that in order to be a constructive termination or constructive nonrenewal, the franchisees have to actually terminate the relationship.  “Thus, when given its ordinary meaning, the Act is violated only if an agreement for the use of a trademark, purchase or motor fuel, or lease of a premises is ‘put [to] an end’ or ‘annul[ed] or destroy[ed].’  Conduct that does not force an ende to the franchise, in contrast, is not prohibited by the Act’s plaine terms.” (pp. 14-15).

Posted in Licensing | No Comments »

Court has no jurisdiction over foreign trademarks incidentally picked up by American press

February 18th, 2010

Gallup, Inc. v. Business Research Bureau (PVT.) Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12154 (N.D. Cal., 2010)

Defendant runs a polling business in Pakistan under the name Gallup Pakistan, and is a an affiliate of Gallup International Association.  Plaintiff does polling in the United States, and is a former member of Gallup International Association.  Defendant alleged that Plaintiff is currently involved in trademark disputes with mayn GIA affiliates (noted as an aside in the case).  Defendant posts his polls online in English.  As a result, some polls have been picked up by American publications.  The court held that these extraterritorial actions do not give rise to jurisdiction under a Timberlane analysis. 

“Indeed, plaintiff essentially asks the Court to hold that mere participation in an international teleconference or news program broadcast to the United States (or available for viewing in the United States via the Internet) is sufficient to subject the holder of a presumably valid foreign trademark to infringement liability under the Lanham Act. The principles of comity and fairness weigh strongly against this argument.” (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12154 at p. 27.)

Posted in Jurisdiction | No Comments »

Bourbon battle can be fought in California instead of Kentucky

February 15th, 2010

Rare Breed Distilling v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal., 2010)

Plaintiff and Defendant both produce bourbon-based honey liqueurs that form the basis of a trademark infringement suit.  Although both companies are headquartered out of Kentucky, Plaintiff’s IP issues are handled by a distributor based out of San Francisco.  As a result, Plaintiff brought suit in the Northern District of California.  Defendant requested transfer of venue under 28 USC 1404(a).  The court declined to transfer because, on balance, the inconvenience to witnesses (etc.) did not outweight Plaintiff’s choice of forum.

Posted in Forum/Venue | No Comments »

Parody of political opponent’s mark covered by free speech

February 9th, 2010

ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8 v. Courage Campaign, 2010 U.S. Dist. 10045 (E.D. Cal., 2010)

Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction based on trademark infringement.  The court denied the injunction, holding that Plaintiff was “unlikely to overcome the conclusion that defendant’s use of the mark is protected under the first amendment, in that the use is relevant to an expressive parody and the use is not explicitly misleading.” Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in First Amendment, Injunction | No Comments »

« Older Entries
    Avatar Legal
  • Pages

    • About Avatar Legal, PC
    • about the author
  • Archives

    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
  • Categories

    • attorneys fees (4)
    • California law (4)
    • Conflict of Interest (1)
    • consumer surveys (1)
    • Counterfeiting (5)
    • Cybersquatting (2)
    • Declaratory Action (2)
    • default judgment (5)
    • dilution (2)
    • Discovery (3)
    • Distinctive (1)
    • Factual Analysis (5)
    • False Endorsement (2)
    • First Amendment (3)
    • Forum/Venue (1)
    • Functionality (3)
    • Genericism (3)
    • Injunction (2)
    • intent to use (1)
    • Jurisdiction (3)
    • Laches (2)
    • Licensing (3)
    • likelihood of confusion (8)
    • Procedure (4)
    • secondary meaning (5)
    • statutory damages (2)
    • trade dress (2)
    • Uncategorized (5)
    • Use (1)
    • Validity of Mark (2)

  • Syndication

    • RSS Feed
    • RSS
    • Atom
    • Comments RSS
    • Law School Personal Statement
    • Free Lawyer Listings
    • Divorce Lawyer Thousand Oaks CA

Trademark Law Briefs is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).