Tag Archives: Trials

Book ’em, Dan-o!

Originally posted 2011-05-10 22:45:20. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Historic courthouse, Essex County (Newark) NJThere really is still such a thing as personal jurisdiction — and its absence — even in the Internet age, reports Evan Brown:

Last year Facebook made us wonder if it had gone off its meds when it filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Illinois-based Teachbook.com. More than one commentator thought Facebook was being overzealous in its efforts to claim exclusivity in the term “book” for social networking services.

However one countenances the action, the court has shut the cover on the first chapter. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (where Facebook is located) held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Illinois defendant. So it dismissed the case.

There is a Constitution out there, still!

Also:  kudos to Evan for demonstrating the proper use of the word “however” as the first word in a sentence.  (Same thing like I said about the Constitution!)


Emerson InSinkErator trash compactors will mangle your hand if you stick it in one of them.

Originally posted 2006-10-19 13:44:39. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Sounds like a reasonable assertion, right? The same thing will happen if you stick your hand into an Acme trash compactor. It’s just bad practice. Who could be offended by that?


Emerson Electic could (links added):

Emerson Electric is suing NBC over a scene in their new series “Heroes” that featured the company’s garbage disposal, according to an CNN Money article. The first episode showed one of the characters (whose superpowers include indestructibility) stuffing her hand down the disposal and getting it mangled, although within a few seconds her hand was fully healed.

However, Emerson, makers of the “InSinkErator,” believes the scene gratuitously showed their product as being dangerous. Their suit alleges that the program “implies an incorrect and dangerous design for a food waste disposer,” and “casts the disposer in an unsavory light, irreparably tarnishing the product.” They are reportedly asking the court to order NBC to “remove Emerson trademarks from future broadcasts of the show and also seek damages suffered from NBC’s acts of “unfair competition, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution.”

A spokesman for Emerson pointed out data showing that not only are you 10 times more likely to suffer harm from your dishwasher, but any injuries suffered in the event of a disposal accident would not be nearly as severe as those shown in the TV episode.

You can’t say “unbelievable” any more, because nothing is. But on the face of it, this sounds mighty flimsy — “trademark use,” anyone? — and an abuse of the Lanham Act that may be sanctionable. Decide for yourself and let me know what you think: Here’s the amended complaint.

The suit was filed in St. Louis, where Emerson is based.

UPDATE:  Stupid claim settled.  Of course.

Best of 2009: “Infinity Dollars” — IP damages and the jury, Part 1

Originally posted 2009-06-19 12:07:08. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

JuryA lot of people, including judges, lawyers and civilians, don’t seem to really understand what statutory damages are all about.  They are not supposed to be a windfall (discussed more here).  But just tell that to the jury that awarded “infinity dollars” — practically — to the Lords of Music for what was indeed knowing copyright infringement of two dozen songs, and to the person on whose head the jury just laid that award.

I’m not an “information wants to be free” nutter, and musical compositions aren’t “information” anyway except to the most heartless utilitarian, but Stan Schroeder (presumably no nutter either, but probably to my left on this issue) hits it right on the head:


In one of the most ridiculous verdicts I’ve seen, the jury decided that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the first woman who was charged with copyright infringement and offered to settle but decided to fight the RIAA, is guilty and owes the recording industry 1.92 million dollars, or $80,000 per song.

As we mentioned in our original article, Jammie’s case was full of holes, and she probably would have done better if she had just settled with the RIAA. But what’s striking here is the amount of money awarded to the recording industry for infringing the copyright for just one song.

Read More…

Best of 2008: Fool’s gold

Originally posted 2008-11-16 14:31:19. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Crystal Energy Reading, Horatio StreetPosted on November 16, 2008.

The Internet changes everything right? Not this: A fool and his money — especially the kind paid to consultants — are still soon parted:

Pre-Internet, lawyers would do their best to flesh out the backgrounds of people who might sit in the jury box. “We used to drive by the juror’s house and take a picture just to get a snapshot of, who is this human being?” recalled Robert Hirschhorn, a Dallas-based attorney and jury consultant.

Yet picking the panel whose judgment could send a client to prison or direct the disposition of millions of dollars often came down to intuition. Today, for a growing number of attorneys who want to take the guesswork out of the process, a Web search is a required first stop.

In one recent patent case he consulted on, Hirschhorn says an Internet search revealed that a potential juror owned a business helping beauty pageant contestants find costumes. According to her Web site, she wouldn’t sell certain clothing lines because the designs were patent-protected — “a gold nugget,” he said. “It told us she understood the value of proprietary information.”



It told you that, did it, Robert? Some patent! What did you charge for that brilliant advice? Did this gold nugget tell you perhaps her confusion between patents and copyrights or something else that may or may not govern what clothing lines she could sell could hurt your client rather than help it? Did it tell you whether and how much she perhaps resented not being able to sell those “patent-protected” clothing lines “because of some legal technicality”?

Did it tell you anything useful at all? It gets better: Read More…

Best of 2008: Someone dropped in an extra zero, right? RIGHT?

Posted on October 16, 2008.

It’s a month-old story, and how it got past us here notwithstanding, it’s not getting past us now.  Per the ABA Journal, remember the Bratz litigation?  Well, you haven’t read half of it yet:

Two toy companies battling for rights to the Bratz dolls-with-attitude have racked up legal fees of at least $93 million in the case.

MGA Entertainment has spent $63 million in fees since 2004 defending a lawsuit by Mattel Inc. that contended the doll’s designer conceived of the idea before leaping from Mattel to MGA, the Daily Journal reports (sub. req.). Plaintiff Mattel has spent $30 million in just the first half of the year, the story says.

Mattel was awarded $100 million in the case, far short of the more than $2 billion in damages it had sought.

The Daily Journal got MGA’s figures in a lawsuit it filed against its insurers seeking full payment of the Bratz fees, while the publication got the Mattel figure from a stock analyst.



The ABA item quotes a Jones Day litigation partner who is flummoxed at the idea that there is any conceivable way to get to $93 million for a trademark case, even over the course of four years.  We sure are, too.  And re-read this ‘graph: Read More…

Best of 2008: No Social Networking Privilege

Originally posted 2008-12-24 11:00:19. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

On Point reports that a New Jersey federal magistrate has, to the surprise of no actual attorney I could imagine, ruled that MySpace and Facebook postings and other social networking communications are discoverable in civil litigation.

A New Jersey judge has allowed an insurance company being sued for denying benefits to children with eating disorders to conduct a “cyber-investigation” into the children’s postings on social networking websites.

Such investigations are becoming more common in lawsuits and U.S. Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz’s decision isn’t likely to calm the fears of privacy advocates. The potential injury to the children from disclosure of their postings, she ruled, did not outweigh Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey’s need for the information.

Shwartz is handling discovery issues in two insurance coverage cases brought against Horizon by the parents of children suffering from anorexia or bulimia. The cases are Beye v. Horizon and Foley v. Horizon.



“The Court will require production of entries on webpages such as ‘MySpace’ or ‘Facebook’ that the beneficiaries shared with others,” Shwartz said in a Dec. 14 order.

According to a Seattle TV station, Chrysler has taken a similarly intrusive approach by requesting access to the MySpace account of a woman who is suing the auto giant over injuries suffered in an auto accident. Marissa Schneider’s MySpace page includes an admission that she smoked pot in the past.

“To say that anything posted on MySpace is gospel is ludicrous and it really paves the way for you to say, ‘I can never post anything on this site because it’s going to be used against me,'” her attorney told KING 5 News.

I’d consider sanctioning that attorney if he admitted making such a stupid and, really, contumaceous remark.

Read More…

Best of 2006: Side by side comparison doesn’t decide likelihood of confusion

Originally posted 2006-07-11 17:14:18. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Dooney & Bourke’s pattern

Originally posted on July 11, 2006.

This is an important decision: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has partially reversed the earlier ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (full decision here) in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.

Here’s the “money quote” as a once-great blogger taught me to say (citations and internal quotes omitted; link added) :

We turn next to the question of likelihood of confusion. . . . The similarity of the marks is a key factor in determining likelihood of confusion. To apply this factor, courts must analyze the mark’s overall impression on a consumer, considering the context in which the marks are displayed and the totality of factors that could cause confusion among prospective purchasers.’ The district court here noted that there were “obvious



similarities” between the Louis Vuitton and Dooney & Bourke handbags. However, it determined that despite the similarities, the two marks were not confusingly similar. It appears the trial court made the same mistake that we criticized in [the] Burlington Coat Factory [decision]: inappropriately focusing on the similarity of the marks in a side-by-side comparison instead of when viewed sequentially in the context of the marketplace.

The district court reasoned:

Read More…

Not a good e-discovery strategy

Originally posted 2007-02-08 16:29:54. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Sullivan and Cromwell bookLavi Soloway writes (hat tip to Above the Law) regarding the extremely un-white-shoe discrimination litigation in New York County between former Sullivan & Cromwell associate Aaron Charney and the law firm, including this astonishing bit:

Last Wednesday January 31 there was a secret settlement meeting at which Charney was offered an undisclosed sum in return for which he promised, among other things, to destroy the hard drive on his personal, home computer. The destruction of that hard drive moved to the center of the debate. Aaron Charney has been ordered to submit an affidavit to the court regarding the hard drive and the status of documents that were allegedly in his possession.

Judge Fried also ordered Aaron Charney to produce his personal, home hard drive at 9:30 a.m tomorrow morning, if, in fact, is has not been destroyed. Fried was particularly concerned that Charney seems to have destroyed the hard drive (which would presumably have contained emails he sent to him self from his Sullivan and Cromwell account with client documents and other firm related documents attached) AFTER being ordered by Judge Ramos at an earlier hearing not to do so. It appeared that Charney destroyed the hard drive becuase S&C asked him to do so as a condition of settlement.

This would be astonishing, indeed. You don’t even need the new, improved and annoying e-discovery rules in the federal courts, nor do you need to be a litigator, to know what a bad, bad idea that was.

Both parties may have a lot of explaining to do. Sweeter it does not get!

UPDATE: S&C promises plenty of explaining. They’ve got your explaining right here. ($5 Million?!)

UPDATE:  Settled.

Internet anonymity still a judicial fave

Originally posted 2007-01-24 14:56:30. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Evan Brown reports:

A trial court in Arizona has quashed a subpoena served on Godaddy, issued by a plaintiff in a defamation suit against an anonymous website owner. Applying the standard articulated in the Delaware Supreme Court decision of Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (2005), the court held that the plaintiff had failed to present a strong enough case to overcome the defendant’s First Amendment right to speak anonymously. Under the Cahill standard, a plaintiff seeking to unmask an anonymous Internet defendant must put forth evidence sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment before the court will order the identity to be revealed.

We’ve discussed this issue beforemore than once. Although I am chary of the general proposition that Internet anonymity is an unalloyed good thing, this is a good policy: Where there is no defendant but a John Doe, as justified as it may be to file against unknown defendants in general, it is the court’s duty to make sure that the power of the court be utilized to obtain discovery in pursuit of a meritless claim.

Sloppiness is its own reward — for the other side’s lawyers

Originally posted 2006-07-19 15:57:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

We said a while ago that the RIAA and its ilk looked out of control. Now Walter Olson reports that now the RIAA might have to pay attorneys’ fees for going overboard in one of its “sue the phone book” copyright blunderbuss suits. That’s not a good sign.

U.S. District of Arizona: “No automatic injunction upon a finding of copyright infringement”

Originally posted 2008-09-05 17:38:37. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Not that the plaintiffs in the Designer Skin case didn’t get an injunction:  They did (here it is); a narrow one utilizing proposed language by defendants explicitly permitting S&L to use its own photographs of Designer Skin merchandise on its website (see the prior post).  But the Court ruled that they were not entitled to it merely by virtue of proving copyright infringement.  Here’s an excerpt from the opinion, discussing the point:

The parties dispute the law governing the issuance of a permanent injunction in a copyright-infringement case. Relying on MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993), Designer Skin argues that “a permanent injunction [should] be granted in a copyright infringement case when liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing violations.”  Conversely, S & L Vitamins argues that the MAI rule has been overruled by the recent Supreme Court opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), and that the traditional four-factor test reaffirmed by eBay applies.

MAI’s general rule may accurately describe the result of applying the four-factor test to a copyright-infringement case in which liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing violations. Nevertheless, as Judge Wilson persuasively demonstrated in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1209-10 (C.D. Cal. 2007), this general rule, as a rule, is clearly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay. Thus, for the reasons given by Judge White in Grokster, Designer Skin’s reliance on this pre-eBay rule is unavailing, and the Court will apply the traditional four-factor test. . . .

This is an important holding, making the District of Arizona among the handful of earliest courts to apply the rule of eBay to copyright infringement.  After the jump, you can see how the court did apply it to one particular factor of interest, the need for a plaintiff seeking an injunction to prove irreparable harm.  The court agreed with S&L that past infringement does not lead to a presumption of future infringement. Unfortunately, to our client’s (nominal) detriment, and despite our argument that, seeing as how Designer Skin enunciated no coherent description of harm it suffered by the infringement — and that, in fact, it probably benefited from it — an injunction should not issue, the court found that there was irreparable harm, for reasons best expressed in its own words. Read More…

Some intel on INTEL®

Originally posted 2010-04-07 03:15:14. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

CIA Headquarters - intel inside

There's intel inside.

BUMPED from January 1, 2010 and UPDATED due to decision (scroll to the bottom for the stunning conclusion):

Had you heard about this one from Mike Masnick?

Chip giant Intel has a bit of a reputation for being a trademark bully at times, threatening or suing many companies just for having “intel” in their name somewhere — including a travel agency and a jeans company. Now, before anyone brings it up, yes, as a trademark holder the law requires you to enforce your trademark against infringement, lest it become considered “generic” (such as xerox machines, kleenex tissues, aspirin and other brand names that became generic).  But, the key in all of those generic situations was that the use was applied to things that directly competed with the original brand’s products. People referred to other tissues as “kleenex” and it stuck. Intel’s lawyers seem to go out of their way to find potential infringement where there obviously is none at all.

Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the latest such case, where Intel has sued the operators of the Mexico Watch newsletter, because its domain is LatinIntel.com. Of course, the reason for that is that it is using the commonly accepted abbreviation of “intel” as short for “intelligence.” It’s common shorthand, especially within government circles, to refer to gathered intelligence as simply “intel.” . . .

More importantly, no one is going to look at LatinIntel.com and confuse it for the world’s largest computer chip maker. No one is going to look at that site and wonder how come they can’t order a Centrino processor. There’s simply no confusion at all. . . .

Well, when I first read that post, I thought Mike may just be on to something there. Here’s how I see it now:

[ipaper id=24675978 width=420 height=544]

UPDATE:  Intel loses (don’t get excited about the “decision” itself however!)

Yay us!

Glory and gratitude to my co-counsel Colby Springer who nailed it at oral argument.

MORE:  Is less.