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

Refine your search

4 results found

Article

Venable LLP | USA | 31 Jan 2011

The 8th Circuit clarifies its position on trademark damages, highlighting fractures among the federal circuits on monetary damages

In Masters v. UHS of Del. Inc., Appeal No. 09-3543 (8th Cir. January 6, 2011) (“Masters”), in contrast to at least one other appellate circuit, the Eighth Circuit held that actual confusion is not a prerequisite to an award of monetary damages under the Lanham Act.

Article

McDermott Will & Emery | USA | 28 Apr 2010

A trilogy of appellate jurisdictional jurisprudence

Three decisions, one each from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, have addressed the circumstances in which the Federal Circuit acquires exclusive appellate jurisdiction and raises the spectre of Supreme Court review of another Federal Circuit appellate jurisdictional issue based on the pending certiorari petition filed for review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in Ferring v. Meijer.

Article

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP | USA | 26 Feb 2010

JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud

In its initial decision in this long-running legal battle surrounding the "Joseph Abboud" name, the Southern District of New York found in favor of plaintiff who had purchased defendant's trademarks.

Article

Loeb & Loeb LLP | USA | 10 Jun 2009

Broadvision, Inc. v. General Electric Co., et al.

Finding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has not addressed whether a claim for copyright infringement accrues under the discovery rule (i.e., when plaintiff knew or should have known of the infringement) or the injury rule (i.e., at the time of infringement), the court adopted the injury rule and held that any claims of copyright infringement by defendant The Medical Protective Company (MedPro) more than three years before the action was filed were time-barred.

Previous page 1 Next page