Intellectual Property (11 summaries)
Tomaydo-Tomahhdo, LLC v. Vozary
Recipes are functional directions for achieving a result and are excluded from copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. 102(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Grewal
If a franchisee continues to use a franchisor鈥檚 trademarks for the benefit of his business after justified termination for breach of agreement, then the franchisor has the right to enjoin the unauthorized use of its trademark pursuant to the Lanham Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Trademark Infringement
Chi. Bldg. Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc.
鈥淭he Copyright Act鈥檚 statute of limitations establishes a 鈥榮eparate accrual rule鈥 so that 鈥榚ach infringing act starts a new limitations period.鈥欌
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Copyright Infringement
Intertek United States v. Amspec
Under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the information at issue was a trade secret, that it was misappropriated and that it was used in the defendant鈥檚 business.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Grenade Bev. LLC
To succeed in a trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. 搂 1125, a plaintiff must meet three basic elements: (1) distinctiveness; (2) nonfunctionality; and (3) likelihood of confusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Trademark Infringement
Ajuba Int'l v. Saharia
In a Misappropriation of Trade Secrets claim, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the specific nature of the trade secrets. Trade secret law does not protect an idea which is well known or easily ascertainable; the secret information must afford the owner a competitive advantage by having value to the owner and potential competitors; and the plaintiff must identify the trade secrets with specificity.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Lambert Corp. v. LBJC Inc.
To prevail on a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Section 43(a), a plaintiff must prove: (1) ownership of a valid trademark; (2) use of the mark without its consent; and (3) that such use is likely to cause confusion. Even without a valid trademark registration, a trademark infringement plaintiff may still demonstrate superior rights to a trademark by establishing that it was the first user of the mark in commerce, however, such prior use must be 鈥渃ontinuous,鈥 and not merely 鈥渢ransitory.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Trademark Infringement
Mister Softee, Inc. v. Tsirkos
In a trademark infringement case, courts look to an eight-part test that determines whether customer confusion will occur due to the infringement that will damage business for the senior user.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Trademark Infringement
Home Gambling Network, Inc. v. Piche
In patent infringement cases, the award of attorneys' fees is reserved for 鈥渆xceptional cases鈥; if the infringement is premised on operations that are outside of the United States, the claim cannot be successful and is likely subject to an award of attorneys鈥 fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Patent Infringement attorneys' fees
Whipps, Inc. v. Ross Valve Mfg. Co.
Trade Secrets: Preliminary Injunction: An idea may still be held to be a trade secret, despite not being written down or having written design plans, if a sufficiently detailed description of the design is provided to others.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Preliminary Injunction
Cohen v. Versatile Studios, Inc.
Cases that hinge on whether a copyrighted work was created as a 鈥榳ork made for hire鈥 or as independent are ownership disputes that arise under the Copyright Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Jurisdiction