Monster Energy Co. v. Peng, et al., No. 17 C 414, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2017) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow granted plaintiff Monster Energy’s motion for summary judgment, granting final judgment, a permanent injunction and attorney’s fees in this Lanham Act dispute involving defendants’ use of Monster Energy’s Claw Icon Mark and

Feit Elec. Co. v. Beacon Point Capital, LLC, No. 13 C 9339, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 22, 2017) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman, having previously granted declaratory judgment plaintiff Feit summary judgment of the unenforceability of one of defendant Beacon Point’s patents based upon collateral estoppel, denied Feit summary judgment of a subsequent motion seeking

Luxottica Group S.P.A. v. Li, No. 16 C 487 & 1227, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2017) (Shah, J.).

Judge Shah granted plaintiffs (collectively “Oakley”) summary judgment of Lanham Act trademark infringement and counterfeiting and awarded statutory damages of $60,000 in this case involving Oakley’s WAYFARER and ALHAMBRA marks.

Defendants did not dispute

Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. Wendy’s Int’l., Inc., No. 14 C 865, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2016 (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman denied plaintiff Marshall Feature Recognition’s (“MFR”) counsel’s motion to withdraw and awarded defendant Wendy’s attorneys fees in the amount of $148,201 in this patent dispute involving QR codes.

The Court held

Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corp., No. 12-CV-9033, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2016) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah granted defendant Sears’ summary judgment motion regarding the Lanham Act and related state law claims against it in this IP case involving the Bionic Wrench.

As to false advertising, the Court first examined defendants’

LoggerHead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 12 C 9033, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2016) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah granted defendants summary judgment as to plaintiff Loggerhead’s product design-based and product packaging-based trade dress infringement in this intellectual property case related to LoggerHead’s Bionic Wrench.

Of particular note, the Court held