October 6, 2010 11:05 AM | Posted by Williams, Nikkya | Permalink
Hard Rock Café International (USA), Inc. (HRCI), the owner of the HARD ROCK trademarks, has sued the owners and operators of the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas (“HRH”) and the producers and distributors of the reality TV show “Rehab: Party at the Hard Rock” for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, breach of contract, unfair competition and a declaration that the licensing agreement under which the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino operates is terminated.
read more
August 24, 2010 6:44 PM | Posted by Garrison, Sean | Permalink

            On August 20, 2010, Nevada federal district Judge James Mahan denied Everest Gaming Limited’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Harrah’s Interactive Entertainment, Inc.’s continued use of the EVEREST POKER trademark in connection with the 2010 World Series of Poker.  Everest claimed that a Promotional Agreement, previously entered into by Harrah’s and Everest’s predecessor-in-interest, Ultra Internet Media, S.A. (“UIM”), that authorized the use of the EVEREST POKER mark for the 2008, 2009 and 2010 World Series tournaments had been effectively terminated as of April 1, 2010.  In his order, Judge Mahan ruled that Harrah’s continued use of the EVEREST POKER mark in connection with the 2010 World Series, which began in May, was improper only if the Promotional Agreement had been terminated.  However, he concluded Everest had not, at least at this stage of the proceedings, satisfied its burden of proving that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the Promotional Agreement had in fact been terminated.  Accordingly, Judge Mahan denied Everest Gaming’s request for an injunction against Harrah’s finding that on the evidence before him it was unclear whether the Promotional Agreement had been terminated or not.

read more
July 13, 2010 12:42 PM | Posted by D'Alessandro, Ken and Hayden, Bruce | Permalink

The United States Supreme Court on June 28, 2010, issued its opinion in Bilski et al. v. Kappos. This case was on appeal from the Federal Circuit which had held that the claims for managing hedging risk in Bilski’s patent application were not statutory subject matter under 35 United States Code(“USC”) §101. Rather, they were deemed to be unpatentable as an abstract idea.

read more