Gottschall

Subscribe to Gottschall via RSS

Black & Decker Inc. v. Positec USA Inc., No. 13 C 3075, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2020) (Gottschall, J.)

Judge Gottschall denied defendants’ (collectively “Positec”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment of invalidity and granted it as to noninfringement in this patent case involving string trimmers, commonly known as…

Luxottica Group S.p.A. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 18 C 2188, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 4, 2019) (Gottschall, J.).

Judge Gottschall denied plaintiff Luxottica’s motion for reconsideration that defendants were not properly served as to all but one defendant in this counterfeiting case involving Oakley sunglasses.

Of…

NuCap Indus., Inc. v. Robert Bosch LLC, NO. 15 C 2207, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2016) (Gottschall, J.).

Judge Gottschall overruled plaintiff NuCap’s objections to Magistrate Judge Kim’s decision denying NuCap the right to serve additional discovery related to defendant Robert Bosch’s alleged change in position during litigation in this trade secret…

Golden v. Nadler Pritikin & Mirabelli, No. 05 C 283, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2010) (Gottschall, J.).
Judge Gottschall denied plaintiff Golden’s motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) & (e) in this copyright dispute over real estate listings. Golden was not required to attach a copy of its copyright registration to its complaint. And while it was an “extraordinarily close question whether Golden’s “bare-bones” amended complaint satisfied Twombly, it did plead ownership of a registered copyright and it did plead that defendant allegedly copied the work without consent. Because Golden’s complaint was so bare-bones, defendant’s motion to dismiss was not in bad faith. The Court, therefore, denied Golden’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 motion regarding the motion to dismiss.
…
Continue Reading Plaintiff Need Not Attach Copyright Registration to Complaint

Airoom LLC v. Demi & Cooper, Inc., No. 09 C 4205, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2011) (Gottschall, J.).
Judge Gottschall granted defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff Airoom accused defendants of infringing its trademarks, as well as related state law claims. Defendants, who were creating and hosting Airoom’s website, stopped when Airoom refused to pay amounts allegedly due pursuant to the parties’ contract hosting the site, causing website visitors to be directed to a generic “text page.”
Airoom claimed Lanham Act violations based upon defendants’ decision not to continue hosting the site. Based upon the “artful pleading” doctrine, the Court held that Airoom’s claims sounded in copyright, not the Lanham Act. The Court, therefore, lacked federal question jurisdiction. And because all parties were Illinois residents, there could not be diversity jurisdiction. Airoom’s case was, therefore, dismissed.
…
Continue Reading Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Contract Case “Artfully Plead” in Trademark

Flava Works, Inc. v. Wyche d/b/a DGSource.com, No. 10 C 748, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 28, 2010) (Gottschall, J.).
Judge Gottschall denied plaintiff Flava Works’ motion for default judgment based upon Flava Works’ proof of damages. Flava Works accused defendants (collectively “DGSource”) of copyright infringement and Lanham Act false designation of origin based upon a series of websites that allegedly used and sold Flava Works’ copyrighted content. DGSource never answered the complaint, and the Court entered a default order. In response, Flava Works submitted a proof of damages seeking approximately $1.3M. As an initial matter, the Court held that because both claims stem from the same operative facts, Flava Works was required to choose either copyright or Lanham Act damages. Flava Works also had to choose actual or statutory damages to the extent it chose copyright damages.
With respect to actual damages, the difference between the copyright and Lanham Act claims was that the Lanham Act provided for trebling damages. Regardless of the calculation, Flava Works’ estimates of its losses and DGSource’s profits were “conclusory” and provided without context. For example, Flava Works did not set out how much of DGSource’s website content was infringing and, therefore, would be relevant to a damages calculation.
Flava Works was not required to present evidence if it chose statutory damages, but without evidence the Court was required to adjust the award down, and the Court noted that it would benefit from additional evidence. The Court also noted that Flava Works was only entitled to statutory damages as to the two registered copyrights.
Finally, Flava Works did not prove the elements necessary for a permanent injunction. And Flava Works offered no authority for its requested remedy of transferring DGSource’s domain names to Flava Works.
…
Continue Reading Plaintiff Must Choose Between Lanham Act or Copyright Damages in Default Judgment