February 2010


February 23, 2010 5:24 PM | Posted by Olafson, Shane | Permalink

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona recently dealt a strong blow to a company for willfully infringing Cricket Communication’s intellectual property rights.  In Cricket Communications, Inc. v. Nazir d/b/a GSM Cellular, Case No. 08-CV-00295, the Court held that the defendant had willfully infringed Cricket’s trademark rights in the Cricket® trademark.  The Court permanently enjoined the defendant from further infringing acts, and ordered the defendant to pay Cricket’s attorneys’ fees in their entirety.  In doing so, the Court found that “Defendant’s behavior throughout the course of this litigation may certainly -- at the very least -- be considered deliberate, willful, and fraudulent,” rendering the case exceptional under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).   

read more
February 18, 2010 10:25 AM | Posted by McCue, Michael | Permalink
In Daimlerchrysler Corporation V. American Motors Corporation, Cancellation No. 92045099, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board denied DaimlerChrysler’s motion for summary judgment on its fraud claim and made it all but impossible for a petitioner to prevail on a fraud claim on summary judgment. read more
February 9, 2010 11:07 AM | Posted by Kouchoukos, Robert | Permalink
After several years of waging an anti-piracy litigation campaign against the unauthorized downloading and file sharing of recorded music, the recording industry may soon find itself playing defense as legal notices served on record labels by recording artists asserting termination of the labels’ sound recording copyrights start to take effect on January 1, 2013. read more
February 2, 2010 11:30 AM | Posted by Williams, Nikkya | Permalink
Over the weekend, the NFL sent a letter to Louisiana Senator David Vitter, backing off its claim that the NFL had trademark rights in the phrase “Who Dat” and calling the debacle a “significant misunderstanding.” Their clarification is that the NFL is not claiming “Who Dat,” they’re claiming “Who Dat” when it’s used in conjunction with Saints trademarks, like the Saints’ version of the fleur de lis. Therefore, as an NFL spokesman explained, the t-shirts one targeted business owner was selling were perfectly okay as long they are not advertised using any of the Saints marks. The business owner was apparently advertising the t-shirts as Saints gear read more