Top 10 Trademark Cases for the Month of November 2010

1. Primepoint, L.L.C. v. PrimePay, Inc., No. 09-3241, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24357, September 23, 2010, Argued, November 29, 2010, Opinion Filed,  NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION UNDER THIRD CIRCUIT INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURE RULE 5.7. SUCH OPINIONS ARE NOT REGARDED AS PRECEDENTS WHICH BIND THE COURT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

CORE TERMS:  injunction, infringe, enjoin, illegal conduct, trademark, cease

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Primepoint, L.L.C. v. PrimePay, Inc.

Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Primepoint, L.L.C. v. PrimePay, Inc.

2. Semiconductor Mfg. Int'l (Shanghai) Corp. v. Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co., Ltd., 2010-1441, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24415, November 29, 2010, Decided, November 29, 2010, Filed,  THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Semiconductor Mfg. Int'l (Shanghai) Corp. v. Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co.

Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Semiconductor Mfg. Int'l (Shanghai) Corp. v. Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co.

3. Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int'l N.V., 06-3532-CV, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24386, November 24, 2010, Decided,  PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

OVERVIEW:  In a litigation concerning ownership of famous vodka trademarks, New York law did not permit the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud action based on misrepresentations to a third party and unjust enrichment was unavailable as the complaint sought only monetary relief, which was an adequate remedy at law.

CORE TERMS:  trademark, unjust enrichment, fraud claim, ownership, entity, false statement, joinder, decree, Lanham Act, good conscience ...

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int'l N.V.

Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int'l N.V.

4. FreecycleSunnyvale v. Freecycle Network, No. 08-16382, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24174, August 10, 2010, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California, November 24, 2010, Filed

OVERVIEW:  In a trademark infringement suit involving a "freecycling" organization, the trademark holder engaged in naked licensing and consequently abandoned the trademarks because, inter alia, the trademark holder did not retain express contractual control over, and did not have actual control over, a member group's quality control measures.

CORE TERMS:  trademark, licensee's, quality control, licensing, naked, licensor, freecycle, summary judgment, moderator, license ...

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of FreecycleSunnyvale v. Freecycle Network

Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of FreecycleSunnyvale v. Freecycle Network

5. Ting Ji v. Bose Corp., Nos. 09-2341, 09-2342, 09-2343, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24050, November 23, 2010, Decided

OVERVIEW:  A model, who prevailed in her right-to-publicity claim under Fla. Stat. § 540.08 based on the alleged improper use of her image to package and promote a product, was not entitled to a new trial regarding damages due to limited discovery regarding the manufacturer's sales because sales data was not necessary to determine reasonable royalty damages.

CORE TERMS:  royalty, summary judgment, usage, voucher, attorneys' fees, discovery, number of unit, quotation marks omitted, privacy, Lanham Act ...

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Ting Ji v. Bose Corp.

Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Ting Ji v. Bose Corp.

6. Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States, Inc., No. 08-2306, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24028, February 20, 2009, Argued, November 23, 2010, Decided

CORE TERMS:  injunction, nonparty, spiritual, assemblies, contempt, privity, enjoined, religious, dictionary, contemnor ...

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States, Inc.

Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States, Inc.

7. Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, LLC, No. 10-2327, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24032, September 22, 2010, Submitted, November 23, 2010, Decided

OVERVIEW:  Seller of infrared lamps was entitled to attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1117(a) after successfully defending against a healthcare provider's Lanham Act claim; the case amounted to an abuse of process and was therefore "exceptional" because the provider had made the meritless claim in an attempt to coerce a price reduction.

CORE TERMS:  Lanham Act, prevailing, abuse of process, bad faith, award of attorneys' fees, attorneys' fees, exceptional, oppressive, trademark, lamp ...

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, LLC

Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, LLC

8. Anthony's Pizza Holding Co. v. Anthony's Pizza & Pasta Int'l, Inc., 2010-1191, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23898, November 18, 2010, Decided,  THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

OVERVIEW:  Where a competing Italian food restaurant sought to register its trademark and design for "ANTHONY'S COAL-FIRED PIZZA," the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board did not err in finding likely consumer confusion with the existing mark of "ANTHONY'S PIZZA & PASTA."

CORE TERMS:  pizza, restaurant, registration, similarity, consumer, likely to cause, chicken, coexistence, entireties, cancel ...

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Anthony's Pizza Holding Co. v. Anthony's Pizza & Pasta Int'l, Inc.

Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Anthony's Pizza Holding Co. v. Anthony's Pizza & Pasta Int'l, Inc.

9. Estrada v. Telefonos De Mex., 2010-1558, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23348, November 8, 2010, Decided, November 8, 2010, Filed,  THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Estrada v. Telefonos De Mex.

Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Estrada v. Telefonos De Mex.

10. Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC v. Fed. Corp., 2010-1376, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23346, November 8, 2010, Decided, November 8, 2010, Filed,  THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC v. Fed. Corp.

Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free, un-enhanced version of Bridgestone Ams. Tire Operations, LLC v. Fed. Corp.