Trademark Law Briefs

a summary of recent 9th Circuit trademark decisions

Archive for the ‘Procedure’ Category

Newer Entries »

Six-year delay in bringing suit results in laches ruling

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

ATM Expresss, Inc. v. ATM Express, Inc, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83756 (S.D. Ca. 2009)

Plaintiff began using name in 1997.  Defendant began using name in 1999.  Plaintiff learned of Defendant’s use in 2001, filed for trademark in 2003, and sued defendant in 2007.  Court ruled in favor of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on its laches defense. (more…)

Posted in Laches, Procedure | No Comments »

TTAB cancellation proceeding stayed for District Court determination

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

CTF Development, Inc. v. Penta Hospitality, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79757 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

After being sued by Plaintiff, Defendant started a TTAB action to cancel Plaintiff’s mark based on false statements in Plaintiff’s statement of use.  On Plaintiff’s motion, TTAB stayed its proceedings pending the district court outcome.  Defendant sought to stay the district court proceedings instead.  Because the TTAB proceedings were already stayed, the District Court denied the motion to at least allow discovery which would benefit either proceeding. (more…)

Posted in Cybersquatting, Factual Analysis, Procedure, Validity of Mark | 1 Comment »

TRO and seizure granted for Core Rhythm knock-offs

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Dancesport Videos, LLC v. Ediza Online, Inc. et al.  2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78971 (S.D. Cal. 2009)

The court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for seizure of defendant’s videos bearing counterfeits of Plaintiff’s ”Core Rhythm” trademarks and containing of Plaintiff’s copyrighted material.

Posted in Counterfeiting, Procedure | No Comments »

Newer Entries »
    Avatar Legal
  • You are currently browsing the archives for the Procedure 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).