Actions which impinge upon the monopoly granted by an Intellectual Property right are considered infringements.
In front of the Basic Civil Court Skopje, in Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia (“The Civil Court”) in 2022 a case has been initiated between two companies in the konditorei industry, one from Republic of Serbia (the plaintiff) and the other one from the Republic of North Macedonia (the defendant). The basis of the dispute…
First Circuit affirmed denial of injunction, noting that confusion due to proximity of businesses and both trading off of the same historical legend “is not the type of confusion that trademark owners may prevent.” The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has affirmed the denial of injunctive relief sought by the owner of a…
In the first part of this series, we examined how geopolitical factors have contributed to a rise in trademark squatting, focusing on Russian companies taking advantage of foreign brands’ market exits due to sanctions. In this part, we delve into the case between LLC “ALAYV TRADE” and SANYO Electric Co. Ltd. “ALAYV TRADE” vs SANYO…
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 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…
Swatch sued Samsung for trademark infringement, arguing that Samsung allowed users to download infringing watch face apps from its Galaxy App Store (“SGA”). The Samsung case[1] shows that the UK courts will take a different view, however, where a tech provider plays an active role in providing an ecosystem for third-party developers. We have previously…
Will the CJEU take a deep dive into the right of possession? The European Court of Justice will have to deal with this question following a reference from the German Federal Supreme Court (Decision of 23 January 2024 in Case I ZR 205/22). The detailed questions which the Court will have to answer are: …
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…
On 25 January 2024 the CJEU issued the long-awaited judgement in the already famous AUDI case (C-334/22). This judgment confirms the possibility of Audi trade mark infringement in terms of the legal interpretation which will be further determined by a national court. The court ruled in AUDI’s favour, stating that a car manufacturer can prohibit…
