The battle for attorneys’ fees after an intense trademark dispute often leaves many prevailing parties empty handed. This is because the Lanham Act only provides for attorneys’ fees in “exceptional cases.” Congress’s (and courts’) reluctance to award attorneys’ fees stems from the “American Rule,” which provides that each party to a
Legal departments sometimes get a bad reputation for saying “no” too often. A “no” from legal is particularly hard to stomach when you think the potential legal risk is farfetched. In this dispute, Wal-Mart must have decided that there was no way a competitor could own the basic word BACKYARD for grills and grilling accessories.
Recently, I attended the University of Minnesota’s celebration of “40 Years of Gopher Justice,” an event honoring the institution’s University Student Legal Service (“USLS”), a non-profit organization that provides UMN students with free legal services. The celebration included a panel on a contemporary topic in student advocacy: “revenge porn.” The topic isn’t relevant
Last week a federal lawsuit was filed in Minnesota by Blu Dot to protect alleged intellectual property rights in the floor lamp shown on the left below. The accused “strikingly and confusingly similar” floor lamp shown on the right below is sold by Canadian Rove Concepts:
So, what type of intellectual property do you
Slowly but surely, the extension of the Supreme Court’s 2014 Octane Fitness v. LLC v. Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. decision to trademark claims is gaining traction among federal appellate courts. The Octane Fitness decision addressed the standard for determining whether a case is “exceptional” under the Patent Act and therefore eligible for an award
Earlier this month the Southern District of New York granted the defendant’s Motion for Summary in Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag , Inc. The fashion giant had brought suit against a California company over its sales of a canvas tote bag that included an image that “evoked” Louis Vuitton’s
It’s no secret, lawsuits can be expensive. That’s why parties frequently consider the availability of recovering attorney’s fees when deciding whether to pursue (or defend) a lawsuit. While attorney’s fees have been available in trademark infringement lawsuits for many years, the standard for granting awards of such fees has shifted in light of recent Supreme
Techdirt has written extensively about why Monster Cable is considered “somewhat famous as a trademark bully.” Numerous comments to a TTABlog post reinforce this view.
One of the examples Mike Masnick over at Techdirt has highlighted is a TTAB case we handled for a Monster Cable victim a few years back, reported here, with
Minnesota State Representative Joyce Peppin, is convinced that “trademark bullying” is a problem and that it requires a brand new law in Minnesota to properly deal with it.
Representative Peppin apparently is a law student at William Mitchell College of Law, and she has teamed up with other students and William
While it is true that not responding to a trademark cease and desist letter is always an available option, I tend to believe it is rarely a good choice. The strategy of silence seldom makes the issue go away, it often ends up costing the recipient more money to resolve the issue, and it is