Attorneys’ Fees – SoCal IP Law Institute

SoCal IP Institute :: April 13, 2015 :: A Citeable TTAB Decision (ProMark v. GFA) and Timely Atty Fees Motion in Slep-Tone

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 13, 2015 will be a discussion of the following cases: ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands Inc. (TTAB March 27, 2015) (available here). Here, ProMark (later assigned to H.J. Heinz Company) opposed GFA's trademark application for the plain word mark SMART BALANCE for: frozen appetizers containing poultry, meat, seafood or [...]

By SoCal IP|2015-04-10T15:26:53-07:00April 10th, 2015|TTAB, Use in Commerce, Attorney's Fees, Attorneys' Fees, Descriptiveness, Exceptional Case, Likelihood of Confusion, Opposition, Litigation, Patent, Trademark|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: July 7, 2014 :: Copyright infringement and trade secrets

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 7, 2014 will be a discussion of a Supreme Court case on copyright infringement and a California Appellate opinion on trade secrets. Brief synopses appear below. ABC v. Aereo (U.S. June 25, 2014) (available here). The Supreme Court held that Aereo's service, which provided subscribers the [...]

By SoCal IP|2014-10-29T09:51:36-07:00July 7th, 2014|Uncategorized, Dilution, dilution-by-blurring, Infringement, Fame and Distinctiveness, Intent to Use, independent economic value, Likelihood of Confusion, Non-Disclosure Agreement, Trade Secret, Trademark, TTAB, Use in Commerce, Attorneys' Fees, Damages|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: June 2, 2014 :: TTAB Says ‘Chanel’ For Real Estate Services Dilutes the Fashion Brand; Altavion, Inc. wins trade secret case against Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory regarding its digital stamping technology

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, June 2, 2014 will be a discussion of a recent TTAB precedential case and state trade secret opinion. Brief synopses appear below. Chanel, Inc. v. Jerzy Makarczyk (TTAB May 27, 2014) (available here.). Here, Karczyk (“applicant"), filed an application pursuant to Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act to [...]

By SoCal IP|2014-10-29T09:51:37-07:00June 1st, 2014|TTAB, Use in Commerce, Attorneys' Fees, Damages, Uncategorized, Dilution, dilution-by-blurring, Infringement, Fame and Distinctiveness, Intent to Use, independent economic value, Likelihood of Confusion, Non-Disclosure Agreement, Trade Secret, Trademark|1 Comment

SoCal IP Institute :: February 3, 2014 :: Damages in Trademark Infringement Suits and Policing IP on 3rd Party Internet Retailer Websites

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, February 3, 2014 will be a discussion of the effect of damages in trademark infringement suits (15 U.S.C. §1117) – when damages are preferred over injunctions, attorney’s fees in various Circuits, attorney’s fees along with statutory damages for counterfeiters, and what a counterfeit is. Also, a brief [...]

By SoCal IP|2014-02-02T23:15:35-08:00February 2nd, 2014|Damages, Likelihood of Confusion, Trademark, Attorneys' Fees|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: January 6, 2014 :: Attorneys’ fees in patent infringement cases and a trademark infringement case

Happy New Year! Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, January 6, 2014 will be a discussion of trademark infringement and copyrights in space. Brief synopses appear below. Kilopass Tech. v. Sidense Corp., Case No. 2013-1193 (Fed. Cir. 12/26/2013) (available here). Plaintiff Kilopass and defendant Sidense are competitors in the embedded non-volatile memory ("NVM") market. Kilopass [...]

By SoCal IP|2014-01-03T23:03:38-08:00January 3rd, 2014|Patent, Trademark, Attorneys' Fees|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: February 13, 2012 :: Functionality in Trade Dress and Certification Marks

We will be discussing two recent cases during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, February 13, 2012. The first is a 9th Circuit case involving trade dress and the second is a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) case seeking cancellation of a certification mark. Brief synopses are presented below. Secalt S.A. v. [...]

By SoCal IP|2012-02-10T18:43:38-08:00February 10th, 2012|Trade Dress, Trademark, TTAB, Attorneys' Fees|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: December 6, 2010

Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, December 6 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday. We will be discussing the following: Nightingale Home Healthcare v. Anodyne Therapy, No. 10-2327 (7th Cir. [...]

By SoCal IP|2010-12-03T23:59:46-08:00December 3rd, 2010|Trademark, Attorneys' Fees|0 Comments