Trademark Law Briefs

a summary of recent 9th Circuit trademark decisions

Archive for August, 2009

Adword infringement alone doesn’t create personal jurisdiction

Friday, August 28th, 2009

Collegesource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc. 2009 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 75513 (S.D.Cal 2009)

Plaintiff (a California corporation) alleged a number of causes of action against defendant- including trademark infringement based on defendant’s alleged use of plaintiff’s trademarks as adwords.  Defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation, moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.  The district court agreed. (more…)

Posted in Jurisdiction | No Comments »

Tacking on is hard to do

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

One Industries, LLC v. Jim O’Neal Distributing, Inc.  578 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2009)

The appellate court upheld a district court summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and ruled that defendant could not tack it’s earlier use of a rounded O’ mark onto it’s current O’ mark.

  Defendant’s current mark

Plaintiff’s Mark

(more…)

Posted in Uncategorized | 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 »

    Avatar Legal
  • You are currently browsing the Trademark Law Briefs blog archives for August, 2009.

  • Pages

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

    • 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 (7)
    • California law (10)
    • Cancellation (2)
    • Conflict of Interest (1)
    • consumer surveys (1)
    • Counterfeiting (7)
    • Cybersquatting (3)
    • Declaratory Action (2)
    • default judgment (6)
    • descriptive/suggestive (1)
    • dilution (3)
    • Discovery (4)
    • Distinctive (1)
    • Factual Analysis (6)
    • False Endorsement (2)
    • First Amendment (4)
    • First Sale (1)
    • Forum/Venue (2)
    • Functionality (3)
    • Genericism (4)
    • Injunction (5)
    • intent to use (1)
    • Jurisdiction (4)
    • Laches (5)
    • Licensing (4)
    • likelihood of confusion (10)
    • Procedure (6)
    • secondary meaning (6)
    • statutory damages (3)
    • trade dress (3)
    • Uncategorized (10)
    • Use (1)
    • Validity of Mark (4)

  • Syndication

    • RSS Feed
    • RSS
    • Atom
    • Comments RSS

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