Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Florida lawyer) Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.

More info…
(U.S. 2d Cir., Intellectual Property, Trademark) In an action brought under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution, the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim is reversed and remanded where plaintiff’s allegations that Google’s recommendation and sale of its mark to Google’s advertisers, so as to trigger the appearance of their advertisements and links in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion when a Google user launches a search of plaintiff’s trademark, defendant made a use in commerce of the plaintiff’s trademark, properly alleges a claim under the Lanham Act.

Dream Games of Ariz., Inc. v. PC Onsite

(U.S. 9th Cir., Copyright, Gaming Law, Intellectual Property, Travel & Leisure) In a copyright infringement action regarding an electronic bingo game, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) the District Court properly identified the unprotected elements of the game in instructing the jury, and 2) Plaintiff’s illegal operation of the game did not preclude the recovery of statutory damages.

Coquico, Inc. v. Rodrguez-Miranda

(U.S. 1st Cir., Copyright, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement action, district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has a valid copyright; and 2) plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success that it will succeed on its claim that defendant copied original elements of its work as it has provided ample evidence that defendant engaged in actual copying of plaintiff’s work, and that the two works were substantially similar.

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving drugs related to gene regulation, district court’s judgment against defendant is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the court lacked substantial evidence for its verdict that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s patent were supported by adequate written description, and thus the asserted claims are invalid; and 2) the correct correctly concluded that the ’516 patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

tampa lawyer

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.