This morning something — call it intuition; call it server logs — made me go back and look at what was going in with a case I blogged about in December of 2014, Philippe Charriol Ltd. v. A’lor Int’l Ltd. At the time, I wrote, “According to PACER, this litigation is still going strong. There have been, as far as I can tell, no substantive rulings.”
This was only half right, as should have been obvious from the rest of the post, the topic of which was the preliminary injunction application. That is about as substantive as you can get. But I was right in saying that the litigation was still percolating along, complete with what appears to have been an abortive interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Indeed, the most recent docket entry on PACER is a telegraphic order administratively imposing costs in connection with those proceedings.
But the case does remain active and the court is doing the right thing by pushing the parties towards settlement. Still, really, to look at this PACER docket is to love civil litigation, especially of the fashion / IP kind, as LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® surely does. And, as I will explain, it serves to reinforce a point I made years ago about why anti-SLAPP legislation seems like a good idea, but, when you see how it plays out, is probably worse than the problem it was meant to solve.
Now when I say this case is percolating along, I mean percolating along. What in the hopper? Read More…