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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 129

Maker’s Mark dripping red wax trademark infringed by Cuervo high-end tequila
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 7 2010

The red dripping wax seal on Maker's Mark bourbon bottles is a strong trademark and was infringed by Jose Cuervo International when it applied a similar red wax seal to its 100th anniversary product, Reserva de la Familia, a high-end tequila


Whirlpool sued by artist over designs for kitchenaid mixers
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 10 2013

Plaintiff Nicole Dinardo designs and sells hand painted KitchenAid Mixers. Whirlpool, which owns KitchenAid, allegedly approached Dinardo regarding


SiRF Technology, Inc. v. ITC
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 23 2010

The International Trade Commission ("ITC") issued an exclusion and cease and desist order on importation of certain Global Positioning System ("GPS") devices and products after finding that the devices and products infringed certain patents


Michael Jordan secures victory in 7th Circuit right of publicity ruling
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 3 2014

On February 19, 2014, the 7th Circuit held that Jewel Foods Store, Inc.'s use of Michael Jordan's name and number in a congratulatory ad that also


In an interference proceeding, the board must interpret the copied claim in view of the originating disclosure for a written description challenge and in view of the host disclosure for a validity challenge based on prior art
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

The senior party provoked an interference with the junior party by copying the claims of the junior party’s patent into the senior party’s application


Although reluctant to exclude an embodiment, the court must “not allow the disclosed embodiment to outweigh the language of the claim, especially when the court’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence”
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

In a patent interference appeal, the district court construed the claim terms and found that the junior party’s patent did not overlap with, and was not obvious in light of the senior party’s application, and was therefore patentably distinct


In determining inequitable conduct, the withholding of a “highly material” reference alone is not sufficient to establish intent to deceive the Patent Office
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 11 2010

The accused infringer alleged that patentee’s failure to disclose an article to the examiner rendered the patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct


Use of photograph on book cover violates right of privacy
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • May 24 2010

A New York state court recently found a book publisher liable for using a photograph of plaintiff Tasleema Yasin for the cover of its fictional book entitled Baby Doll


Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission et al., No. 2008-1596 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2010

For determining whether infringement and the existence of a domestic industry are satisfied in a 337 action regarding design patents, courts must apply the ordinary observer test instead of relying on a detailed verbal description of the claimed design


In re Andrew Chapman and David J. King, No. 2009-1270 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2010)
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • March 2 2010

An obviousness determination may be called into question if the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not appreciate the full scope of a cited prior art reference