Tracking Northern District of Illinois IP Cases
Societe Pour Loeuvre et la Memoire Dantoine de Saint Exupery – Succession De Saint Exupery-Dagay v. Schedule A Does, No. 25 C 579, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2025) (Durkin, J.).
Judge Durkin denied a Schedule A defendant’s motion to dismiss trademark claims centering on “The Little Prince,” novella rejecting arguments under Fed.
RBG Plastics d/b/ Restaurantware, LLC v. Sparkles Gift & Party Shop, Inc., No. 24-cv-02155 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2025) (Valderrama, J.).
Judge Valderrama denied defendants’ motion to dismiss trademark infringement claims but granted dismissal of false advertising and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) claims in this dispute over plaintiff’s RESTAURANTWARE trademark.
As an initial…
The Kyjen Company, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, No. 23 C 15119 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2025) (Kendall, C.J.).
Chief Judge Kendall denied defendant ThinkPet’s motion for summary judgment in this trademark infringement case involving the “Fun Feeder” mark for slow feeder pet bowls. Kyjen alleged ThinkPet infringed its registered trademark by including “Fun…
UIC John Marshall’s Center for Intellectual Property, Information and Privacy has another excellent program, this one focuses on two key copyright issues – fair use and copyright data protection. Every practitioner can use some time working through the complexities of fair use. This program promises to be excellent. It will be led by McDermott Will’s…
Illinois Tamale Co. v. El-Greg, Inc., No. 16 C 5387, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2018) (Kennelly, J.).
Judge Kennelly denied plaintiff Illinois Tamale’s and defendant El-Greg’s cross-motions for summary judgment in this Lanham Act dispute regarding Illinois Tamale’s PIZZA PUFFS trademarks.
As an initial matter, the Court refused to consider any crowd-sourced…
Sorenson v. WD-40 Co., No. 12 C 50417, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 9, 2014) (Kapala, J.).
Judge Kapala granted defendant WD-40 summary judgment as to plaintiff’s Lanham Act and related state law claims regarding plaintiff’s THE INHIBITOR and related design marks (the “Inhibitor Marks”) and WD-40’s Specialist product line.
WD-40’s use of the …
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. v. McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, No. 12 C 1446, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2013) (Keys, Mag. J.).
Judge Keys granted in part defendant MBHB’s motion to compel document production and request for admission responses in this copyright case involving alleged infringement based upon MBHB’s use …
Timelines, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11 C 6867, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. April 1, 2012) (Darrah, J.).
Judge Darrah denied defendant Facebook’s summary judgment motion arguing that plaintiff Timeline’s TIMELINE trademark was generic or descriptive, and that Facebook’s use of the mark was fair use. Timelines presented evidence that it used TIMELINE as …
Bryan Cave’s art law blog has an excellent post by Jonathan Pink discussing eleven copyright myths — click here to read it. Every corporate executive and small business owner needs to be aware of how the copyright laws impact their business, especially the intersection of copyright law and the internet. I developed a presentation as an element of a corporate copyright compliance program and I am amazed by the results every time I give the presentation to a new corporate division or small business. People are routinely, and largely accidentally, violating copyrights. But the worst part is that a little education, such as my presentation, followed by a few days of generally simple, inexpensive fixes resolves most accidental copyright infringement issues and provides a significant measure of protection for any business, large or small.
Pink’s eleven copyright myths, written in multiple choice format, are a great start toward improving copyright compliance and they are written both humorously and in plain language. Here are two of my favorites:
Myth 4:
If it’s on the Web, it’s free for the taking.
a. No. Stealing is stealing.
b. Sure, why not?
c. This is true, but only if I use a 28KB modem, and the copyright expires before I finish downloading it.
The answer is a. Unless the work falls under a generally recognized exception to the copyright law, if it’s on the Web, copyright protection attaches, and you can get hit with an infringement lawsuit for misappropriating it. See 17 USC §501(a). Nothing about the Web strips otherwise protectable work of its copyright protection.
Myth 5:
Copying just a little bit does not constitute copyright infringement.
a. Maybe.
b. Maybe.
c. Maybe.
The answer is all of the above. Though the “fair use” doctrine allows for some limited copying of a small portion of some works-for example, quotes for use in educational or scholarly works, criticism, parody, and news reporting-there is no bright-line rule as to how much is too much.
* * *
That means that if you take your kid’s Darth Vader action figure, give it Barbie-like hair, and dress it in platform shoes, you’re going to get hit with an infringement action when you try selling it at Toys-R-Us as Ella Vader. You also risk getting hit with a morals charge.
…
Continue Reading Copyright Myths Debunked
Lettuce Entertain You Enters., Inc. v. Leila Sophia AR, LLC d/b/a Lettuce Mix, No. 09 C 2582, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 8, 2009) (Lefkow, J.).
Judge Lefkow denied plaintiff Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises’ (“LEYE”) motion for a temporary restraining order against defendants’ use of a banner reading “Let us be!” flanked by images of lettuce heads (the “Banner”) on a building in which defendants plan to open a salad bar restaurant to be named “Lettuce mix.” LEYE filed this suit seeking the removal of a “Lettuce mix” sign (the “Sign”) defendants placed on the same building. As an effort at resolving the dispute, defendants replaced the Sign with the Banner. After the Banner appeared, LEYE made the instant motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that the Banner infringes LEYE’s LETTUCE trademarks used in connection with LEYE’s operation of more than seventy restaurants throughout the Chicago area and nationwide. The Court held that LEYE did not meet its burden as to the first prong of the TRO analysis, LEYE’s likelihood of success on the merits, and, therefore, the Court did not consider the remaining two elements, whether an adequate remedy at law existed and whether LEYE would have been irreparably harmed if the injunction was not granted.
The Court held that defendants’ Banner was a fair use of LEYE’s trademarks and that, therefore, LEYE did not have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Lanham Act claims. Defendants were not using the Banner’s combination of the phrase “Let us be!” (which the parties agreed sounded like “Lettuce”) and the lettuce images as a service mark. “Lettuce mix” may have been a service mark, but “Let us be!” and the lettuce images were used to draw attention to this case and were meant to say “Hey, Lettuce Entertain You, leave us alone!” And the use of the “let us”/lettuce pun was intended to parody LEYE’s use of “lettuce” in place of “let us” throughout LEYE’s website and other materials. The Court explained that the Banner was not used to identify defendants’ services, but to make a statement of protest:
The [B]anner thus conveys a message from its authors, the proprietors of the unopened restaurant, to the owners of the LETTUCE marks, essentially saying, “Leave us alone!” Even if potential customers viewing the [B]anner do not know or learn of the dispute, it is clear at first glance that the banner is being used to communicate a message of protest.
The Court also noted that this decision had no bearing upon the question of whether defendants’ Lettuce mix restaurant name infringed LEYE’s LETTUCE marks.
…
Continue Reading Protest/Parody Use of Mark is Fair Use
