District court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendants’ profits did not result from use of infringing marks for airplane engine fuel injection systems. Though aircraft fuel-injector servo manufacturer Precision Airmotive, LLC, proved that defendants Avco Corporation and AVStar Fuel Systems, Inc., willfully infringed Precision’s federally registered trademark, it was not entitled to…
There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the manufacturer wrongfully terminated the distribution agreement. The Third Circuit affirmed a judgment for breach of contract in favor of the distributor of an implantable synthetic bone-grafting product called NanoBone. Plaintiff Artoss, Inc., sued the manufacturer, Artoss GmbH, for breach of contract after it refused…
The court also exceeded its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the plaintiff. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed part of a federal district court’s judgment in a trademark dispute between Appliance Liquidation Outlet, L.L.C. (ALO) and Axis Supply Corporation (Axis). The appellate court found that the district court erred in…
District court improperly dismissed Bacardi’s challenge to the PTO decision for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finding no provision in the Lanham Act that expressly precludes judicial review of a trademark registration renewal decision by the USPTO Director, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia has reversed a district…
The jury award of $340,000 for lost profits was not excessive but the trial court gave improper jury instructions on punitive damages. Following a jury trial in Louisville, Kentucky that resulted in a mixed verdict, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio has affirmed a jury award of $340,000 for lost profits on a trademark…
A news publication could not rely on First Amendment protection for its use of a mark even though it made no attempt to parody the original. A news publication named with a common English language word could not invoke the First Amendment to protect it against a trademark claim against the owner of that mark—even…
The Fifth Circuit also added non-genuine bezels to the district court’s injunction to make it consistent with the district court’s other findings. In a trademark infringement case involving refurbished Rolex watches, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment insofar as it concluded that BeckerTime, the refurbisher, infringed Rolex’s…
The parodist could not rely on First Amendment protection because it used the famous sneakers as a source identifier. The maker of a sneaker that parodied a famous brand of skateboard-friendly kicks was not entitled to First Amendment protection against a claim of trademark infringement because it used the trade dress of the original as…
The marks are generic both as to “Carnival” and the geographic locations “St Thomas” and “Virgin Islands.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a lower court decision denying the Virgin Island Carnival Committee (“VICC”) preliminary injunction to enjoin the Virgin Island Department of Tourism from using the phrases “St. Thomas Carnival”…
If the third-party marks and opposer’s marks are identical, the opposer’s marks and the applicant’s marks are compared to see if they are identical or non-identical for identical goods or services. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal…
