Trademark Law Briefs

a summary of recent 9th Circuit trademark decisions

Archive for the ‘attorneys fees’ Category

Newer Entries »

AAA obtains default judgment for infringing use of its logo

Monday, September 7th, 2009

American Automobile Association v. HCM Brothers, Inc. d/b/a Cedar Inn & Suites et al.  2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79095 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

The American Automobile Association obtained a default judgment against a hotel that displayed its trademarks on its premises without authorization.  Plaintiff was granted $684.35 in costs and $11,098.50 in attorneys fees.

Posted in attorneys fees, default judgment | No Comments »

No attorneys fees in unexceptional cases

Monday, August 24th, 2009

Brighton Collectibels, Inc. v. Marc Chantal USA, Inc. 2009 US Dist LEXIS 72362

Plaintiff sued Defendant for trade dress infringement as well as infringement of its “Brighton” trademark for Defendant’s use of the mark “Bristol” and its dangling heart trademark.  Plaintiff prevailed on the trade dress claim, the jury finding that Defendant had willfully enggaged in infringment and unfair competition.  Defendant prevailed on the other infringment claims.  Part of the action was also voluntarily dismissed prior to trial.  Both sides requested, and were denied, attorneys fees.  (more…)

Posted in attorneys fees | No Comments »

K & N Engineering, Inc. v. Bulat et al.

Friday, December 28th, 2007

2007 US App LEXIS 29220 (9th Cir. 2007).  Decided December 18, 2007

Ruling: Plaintiff’s election to receive statutory damages under 15 USC 1117(c) for counterfeit trademarks precludes an award of attorneys fees under 15 USC 1117(b). (more…)

PKZ2 , the ultimate motor starter from Moeller Electric.

Posted in Counterfeiting, attorneys fees | 1 Comment »

Newer Entries »
    Avatar Legal
  • You are currently browsing the archives for the attorneys fees category.

  • Pages

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

    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • June 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • 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 (8)
    • California law (16)
    • Cancellation (3)
    • Conflict of Interest (1)
    • consumer surveys (2)
    • Counterfeiting (9)
    • Cybersquatting (4)
    • Declaratory Action (2)
    • default judgment (7)
    • descriptive/suggestive (2)
    • dilution (3)
    • Discovery (5)
    • Distinctive (1)
    • Factual Analysis (8)
    • False Endorsement (4)
    • First Amendment (6)
    • First Sale (1)
    • Forum/Venue (2)
    • Functionality (4)
    • Genericism (4)
    • Injunction (7)
    • intent to use (3)
    • Jurisdiction (5)
    • keywords (2)
    • Laches (5)
    • Licensing (5)
    • likelihood of confusion (13)
    • Procedure (8)
    • secondary meaning (6)
    • statutory damages (4)
    • trade dress (6)
    • Uncategorized (15)
    • Use (3)
    • Validity of Mark (4)

  • Syndication

    • RSS Feed
    • RSS
    • Atom
    • Comments RSS

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