IP News Shorts

Posted on August 21, 2009 by R. David Donoghue

Here are a few stories from the blogosphere that I did not have time to fully cover this week because of pressing client matters and some new opportunities:

  • The Federalist Society is offering an excellent podcast discussing Bilski from almost every possible angle.  The podcast features West Virginia University Law Professor Michael Risch and American University Law Professor Joshua Sarnoff, who filed competing amicus briefs.  The podcast is a half-hour well spent for  anyone involved in patent law.  Click here to listen to the podcast.  Hat tip to Duncan Bucknell at the IP Think Tank Blog for pointing out the podcast.
     
  • Doug Lichtman's IP Colloquium takes a thorough look at the copyright issue of the year thus far, Shepard Fairey's iconic Obama image, and Lichtman offers free CLE credit for listening.  Click here for that edition and here for the IP Colloquium's archives.
     
  • Michael Atkins has identified the top five trademark cases of the last year at the Seattle Trademark Lawyer.  Number 4 is the Seventh Circuit's decision in AutoZone v. Strick.  Click here for more on the district court decisions in the case from the Blog's archives.  This is what Atkins had to say about the Seventh Circuit's decision:

[G]ood likelihood of confusion analysis in reversal of hard-fought trademark infringement case, which also was one of the first dilution cases under the [Trademark Dilution Revision Act].

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link

A Look at the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006

Posted on December 28, 2007 by R. David Donoghue

Congress enacted the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (the "TDRA") about one year ago in an effort to resolve numerous open trademark issue.*  Many believe that the TDRA has opened more questions than it answered.  The University of Michigan Law Review's First Impressions blog recently addressed those issues with a series of articles:

*  For more on the TDRA, click here for the Blog's archives and click here for the Seattle Trademark Lawyer’s coverage of the TDRA's first anniversary.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link

Changed Circumstances Warrant Dismissal With Costs, Not Attorney's Fees

Posted on October 12, 2007 by R. David Donoghue

Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., No. 05 C 1171, 2007 WL 2875232 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 28, 2004) (Kendall, J.)

Judge Kendall granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss its Lanham Act case with prejudice and awarded defendant its costs but not its fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The Court held that attorney’s fees were not warranted because the case and its dismissal after substantial fact discovery were not exceptional. Plaintiff dismissed its case because of two significant events which plaintiff believed reduced its likelihood of success.

            First, during discovery Congress passed the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (“TDRA”)* which changed the definition of “famous” such that fame within a niche market was no longer sufficient for dilution. Plaintiff was not certain it could prove fame outside its market. Second, defendant changed the trade dress, and particularly the color scheme, of its accused SKIL line of power tools. Plaintiff believed that defendant’s new trade dress was less similar to plaintiff’s and, therefore, plaintiff’s case was more difficult to prove. The Court accepted plaintiff’s reasoning and, therefore, held that the case was not exceptional. The Court did, however, award costs, which plaintiff had originally agreed it would pay.

* For more on the TDRA, click here for the Seattle Trademark Lawyer’s coverage of the TDRA this week in honor of the TDRA’s first anniversary.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link