We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Alesha M. Dominique McDermott Will & Emery

Results 1 to 5 of 5



No trademark infringement where contractor listed manufacturer’s product in municipal bid *

USA - October 31 2012
Analyzing the issue of trademark infringement in the context of a municipal bidding process, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of summary judgment of trademark infringement where a contractor published a manufacturer’s trademark in its bid proposal pursuant to bidding instructions.


Statutory provision on royalty judges violates appointments clause *

USA - August 30 2012
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the position of Copyright Royalty Judges (CRJs) violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but remedied the violation by invalidating and severing restrictions on the Librarian of Congress’s ability to remove the CRJs.


Trade dress damages award upheld after failure to file post-verdict motions *

USA - June 28 2012
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a trade dress infringement award in which the appellant failed to file a post-verdict motion pursuant to either Fed. R. of Civ. P. 50(b) or 59 and instead appealed directly.


A unique arbitrary word mark does not lose strength as trademark when identified along with manufacturer *

USA - April 30 2012
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissing tire manufacturer Bridgestone’s opposition to the registration of the mark MILANZA for use with tires.


Alternative basis for invalidity waived when not raised before district court *

USA - February 29 2012
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment of invalidity where the district court misconstrued the claims at issue, and based on that erroneous construction, held that claims were indefinite for claiming both an apparatus and method steps.