This document summarizes key cases on damages for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. It discusses Sands Taylor & Wood v. The Quaker Oats Co., which established that defendant profits, corrective advertising, reasonable royalties and prejudgment interest can be awarded. It also examines Trovan, Ltd. v. Pfizer, Inc., where the court denied an award of profits and reduced punitive damages, actual damages and reasonable royalties. The main lessons are that bad faith or willfulness must be proven for certain damages, reasonable royalties may not always apply, and specific proof of damages is required.
This document provides an informal brief for the United States in the case of United States v. Morton M. Lapides. It summarizes that Lapides was convicted of price fixing at his 1988 trial based on evidence that he instigated and participated in a conspiracy between two bottling companies. In 1992, Lapides filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis arguing his conviction should be overturned due to violations of his rights, which was denied. The brief argues the district court correctly denied Lapides' motions for recusal, discovery, and coram nobis relief.
The document discusses proposed changes to Rule 26(b)(1) regarding the scope of discovery and whether this would require courts to issue "Lone Pine orders" in complex tort cases. A Lone Pine order requires plaintiffs to submit prima facie evidence of injuries, exposure, and causation at the start of discovery. The document argues that Lone Pine orders allow courts to assess whether discovery is proportional to the needs of the case, as required by the proposed rule change. It provides examples of cases where courts have adopted Lone Pine orders and suggests arguments for convincing courts that Lone Pine orders satisfy their obligations under the revised rule.
This document summarizes a court transcript from a hearing in the Superior Court of California regarding a discovery dispute. The plaintiffs served a notice to produce documents on Joseph Praske as both an individual and trustee. Praske's attorney argued the notice was invalid because it failed to comply with requirements for subpoenaing consumer records from third parties under the Code of Civil Procedure. Specifically, they argued notice was required to be served directly on the trusts from which documents were sought, and on Praske in his capacity as trustee of those trusts. The judge asked for clarification on who exactly needed to be notified and considered whether unknown beneficiaries could be properly notified. The plaintiffs' attorney responded that Praske had previously agreed to produce the documents in question
This memorandum decision addresses cross motions for summary judgment in a case regarding leases on the Osprey Meadows Golf Course and Lodge. Bryant, as the court-appointed fiduciary for RSPT, holds a promissory note, mortgage, and assignment of rents on the property from the defaulting owner, WMG. Tamarack Municipal Association (TMA) leased and operated the golf course and lodge. The court denies Bryant's motions for summary judgment on contract claims and to strike expert testimony. The court partially grants and denies TMA's motion for summary judgment, finding issues of fact remain regarding Bryant's authority to terminate TMA's leases unilaterally upon WMG's default.
The en banc court held that the Supreme Court has clearly established through Glover v. United States and Lafler v. Cooper that Strickland v. Washington governs claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in noncapital sentencing proceedings. This overruled previous Ninth Circuit precedent to the contrary. The court then remanded the case back to the original three-judge panel to resolve the petition applying the corrected standard that Strickland applies.
The EEOC filed suit against Bass Pro Outdoor World and Tracker Marine for violations of Title VII. The EEOC filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that courts can review whether the EEOC attempted conciliation but not how it conducted conciliation. The court denied the EEOC's motion. The court held that under Fifth Circuit precedent, it can review the EEOC's conciliation efforts using a three-part test to evaluate whether the EEOC satisfied its statutory duty to conciliate in good faith. The court also found the EEOC's additional arguments against judicial review of conciliation efforts to be unpersuasive.
The document summarizes the statutes of limitation for various commercial claims under Kansas law, including:
- The statute of limitations is 3 years for account stated and antitrust claims, 5 years for express contracts, 3 years for oral contracts, 4 years for UCC breach of contract claims, and 2 years for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and fraud claims.
- The limitations period begins at the time of the breach for most contract and commercial claims, and when the injury becomes reasonably ascertainable for tort claims like conversion and fraud. Discovery rules and tolling may also apply to determine accrual date in some cases.
This document provides an informal brief for the United States in the case of United States v. Morton M. Lapides. It summarizes that Lapides was convicted of price fixing at his 1988 trial based on evidence that he instigated and participated in a conspiracy between two bottling companies. In 1992, Lapides filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis arguing his conviction should be overturned due to violations of his rights, which was denied. The brief argues the district court correctly denied Lapides' motions for recusal, discovery, and coram nobis relief.
The document discusses proposed changes to Rule 26(b)(1) regarding the scope of discovery and whether this would require courts to issue "Lone Pine orders" in complex tort cases. A Lone Pine order requires plaintiffs to submit prima facie evidence of injuries, exposure, and causation at the start of discovery. The document argues that Lone Pine orders allow courts to assess whether discovery is proportional to the needs of the case, as required by the proposed rule change. It provides examples of cases where courts have adopted Lone Pine orders and suggests arguments for convincing courts that Lone Pine orders satisfy their obligations under the revised rule.
This document summarizes a court transcript from a hearing in the Superior Court of California regarding a discovery dispute. The plaintiffs served a notice to produce documents on Joseph Praske as both an individual and trustee. Praske's attorney argued the notice was invalid because it failed to comply with requirements for subpoenaing consumer records from third parties under the Code of Civil Procedure. Specifically, they argued notice was required to be served directly on the trusts from which documents were sought, and on Praske in his capacity as trustee of those trusts. The judge asked for clarification on who exactly needed to be notified and considered whether unknown beneficiaries could be properly notified. The plaintiffs' attorney responded that Praske had previously agreed to produce the documents in question
This memorandum decision addresses cross motions for summary judgment in a case regarding leases on the Osprey Meadows Golf Course and Lodge. Bryant, as the court-appointed fiduciary for RSPT, holds a promissory note, mortgage, and assignment of rents on the property from the defaulting owner, WMG. Tamarack Municipal Association (TMA) leased and operated the golf course and lodge. The court denies Bryant's motions for summary judgment on contract claims and to strike expert testimony. The court partially grants and denies TMA's motion for summary judgment, finding issues of fact remain regarding Bryant's authority to terminate TMA's leases unilaterally upon WMG's default.
The en banc court held that the Supreme Court has clearly established through Glover v. United States and Lafler v. Cooper that Strickland v. Washington governs claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in noncapital sentencing proceedings. This overruled previous Ninth Circuit precedent to the contrary. The court then remanded the case back to the original three-judge panel to resolve the petition applying the corrected standard that Strickland applies.
The EEOC filed suit against Bass Pro Outdoor World and Tracker Marine for violations of Title VII. The EEOC filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that courts can review whether the EEOC attempted conciliation but not how it conducted conciliation. The court denied the EEOC's motion. The court held that under Fifth Circuit precedent, it can review the EEOC's conciliation efforts using a three-part test to evaluate whether the EEOC satisfied its statutory duty to conciliate in good faith. The court also found the EEOC's additional arguments against judicial review of conciliation efforts to be unpersuasive.
The document summarizes the statutes of limitation for various commercial claims under Kansas law, including:
- The statute of limitations is 3 years for account stated and antitrust claims, 5 years for express contracts, 3 years for oral contracts, 4 years for UCC breach of contract claims, and 2 years for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and fraud claims.
- The limitations period begins at the time of the breach for most contract and commercial claims, and when the injury becomes reasonably ascertainable for tort claims like conversion and fraud. Discovery rules and tolling may also apply to determine accrual date in some cases.
This document summarizes issues that can arise when an insured faces litigation that may result in an excess judgment or claims that are both covered and not covered by their insurance policy. It discusses the inherent conflict of interest between the insurer and insured in these situations. It also outlines procedures for reasonableness hearings on settlement agreements between plaintiffs and insureds to determine if the settlement amount is reasonable. Key court cases are discussed that establish standards for reasonableness hearings and the rights and responsibilities of insurers and insureds in settlement agreements. Recommendations are provided for structuring settlement agreements to avoid issues of collusion.
This document is a memorandum opinion from a US District Court case between I/P Engine, Inc. and various defendants including AOL, Google, and others. The court is determining an ongoing royalty rate for the defendants' continued infringement of I/P Engine's patents related to online advertising systems. The court considers the 3.5% running royalty rate from the previous jury verdict as a starting point. After analyzing additional factors related to the defendants now being adjudged infringers, the court sets the ongoing royalty rate at 6.5%, consisting of a 4.6% base rate plus a 1.9% enhancement for willful infringement.
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark DisputeMike Keyes
This document is a court filing that recommends granting in part a motion for default judgment against two defendants, Haz Investments LLC and Hazim Assaf, in a trademark infringement lawsuit. The plaintiff, GS Holistic LLC, alleges the defendants sold counterfeit products bearing GS's trademarks without authorization. As the defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the clerk entered default against them. The court filing analyzes the applicable legal standards and finds default judgment is warranted procedurally and substantively for some of the plaintiff's claims. It recommends awarding $15,000 in statutory damages, $782 in costs, and injunctive relief to the plaintiff.
John J. Pankauski is a partner with Pankauski Hauser PLLC in West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Pankauski has spent over 20 years of his career handling matters involving wills, trusts, estates, probates, and guardianships. His practice is limited to disputes, trials and appeals of such matters. He is AV Preeminent rated by Martindale Hubel.
This newsletter summarizes two recent court cases related to reinsurance:
1) The New York Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in a case involving allocation of an asbestos settlement between a cedent and reinsurers. The court found issues of fact around the reasonableness of the cedent's allocation assumptions.
2) The Second Circuit held that the question of whether a contract clause provides for arbitration is governed by federal common law when the Federal Arbitration Act applies through the New York Convention. The court affirmed that an insurance contract clause allowing medical examinations to determine disability was an arbitration clause.
The district court properly dismissed Janis Carmona's complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Janis sought to overturn state court decisions in federal district court, which does not have jurisdiction to review state court judgments. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars lower federal courts from reviewing state court decisions. Janis' only recourse was to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied her petition for certiorari. The district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Janis' complaint seeking to invalidate the state court rulings.
This document discusses approaches to sending and responding to patent-related cease and desist (C&D) letters. It describes the "classic" approach of sending non-assertive letters offering to discuss licensing without creating reasonable apprehension of a lawsuit. However, this gave patentees wide latitude. The Supreme Court's Medimmune decision changed this by allowing licensees to seek declaratory judgment without terminating licenses. As a result, patentees must now carefully consider whether and how to send C&D letters to avoid declaratory judgment actions. Upon receiving a C&D letter, alleged infringers should investigate, potentially engage counsel, limit involvement to prevent willfulness findings, and respond to the letter.
Doc1037 robert oneil paul ballard_todd hickman_seeking approval_settlement & ...malp2009
This document is a Trustee's Motion to Approve Compromise and Settlement with Defendants Robert O'Neal, Paul Ballard and Todd Hickman in an Adversary proceeding. The Trustee is seeking the court's approval of a settlement agreement between the Trustee and the Defendants that would allow portions of the Defendants' claims against the Debtor's estate and resolve all claims between the parties. Key terms of the settlement include allowing 75% of O'Neal's claim, 60% of Ballard's claim, and 60% of Hickman's claim. The Trustee believes the settlement is in the best interest of the estate to avoid costly and uncertain litigation.
San Diego Attorney Scott McMillan loses a federal lawsuit seeking a restraining order on the San Diego Sheriff's Department. As the court record demonstrates the basis for the motion was improper and the law did not support it.
B189989 gaggero/sulphur mountain v geraldine, somerset farms, john, maureen r...jamesmaredmond
This document summarizes a hearing in the Superior Court of Ventura County regarding Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Company's motion for attorneys' fees and the defendants' motion to tax costs. The defendants' attorney argued that the case should have been filed as a limited action in municipal court based on the amount in dispute. He also argued that the plaintiffs pursued the case unreasonably by not accepting the defendants' early $25,209 settlement offer, which included damages and attorneys' fees at that point, and instead drove up costs over the ensuing years.
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rightsBryan Johnson
This order grants a preliminary injunction requiring the US Border Patrol to comply with its own guidelines for holding detainees, based on evidence that detainees' basic human needs were not being met. The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that conditions violated detainees' due process rights by depriving them of adequate sleep, hygiene, medical care, food and water, and warmth. While acknowledging funding constraints, the court ruled constitutional rights cannot be denied for fiscal reasons and ordered compliance with guidelines to provide these basic needs as outlined in the Border Patrol's 2008 policy and TEDS standards.
American and English court systems follow the adversarial system where each client is represented by an attorney. The American court system ensures due process through procedural rules like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Generally, the litigation process begins with contacting an attorney for advice and then involves pleadings, discovery, pre-trial procedures, trial, and potential post-trial motions or appeals. Trials are used to present evidence and allow plaintiffs to prove their allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Karan Singh filed a suit in the subordinate court regarding land possession and valued the suit themselves at Rs. 2,950. The subordinate court ruled in favor of the defendants. Karan Singh then appealed to the district court.
2. The district court also ruled against Karan Singh. It was then determined that the correct valuation of the suit was Rs. 9,980, meaning the appeal should have gone to the high court instead of district court.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that while the district court technically did not have jurisdiction due to the undervaluation, Karan Singh could not claim prejudice since the undervaluation was due to their own actions. The ruling of the district court
This newsletter provides summaries of recent reinsurance cases:
1) The US Supreme Court clarified that arbitrators have broad authority to interpret contracts and their decisions should not be overturned even if their interpretation is incorrect, as long as they construed the contract.
2) A California court ordered parties to complete their arbitrator selection process and let the panel decide issues of consolidation and contractual provisions, rather than the court making those decisions.
3) A Connecticut court compelled arbitration in a fronting dispute, finding the reinsurer agreed to arbitrate based on references to underlying reinsurance agreements in an assumption agreement.
The newsletter also provides brief summaries of several other reinsurance court cases.
This document is an order from a United States District Court regarding cross-motions for summary judgment in a case involving a plaintiff who was imprisoned at a halfway house operated by the defendant. The court provides background on the case, including that the plaintiff sued over alleged unlawful seizure of his property and constitutional violations. The court evaluates the motions using the standard for summary judgment, granting the defendant's motion and denying the plaintiff's motion.
This newsletter summarizes recent court cases related to reinsurance:
1) The Third Circuit ruled that a reinsurer did not need to demonstrate prejudice from late notice of loss given by the reinsured in order to be relieved of indemnity obligations, applying New York law.
2) A New York federal court confirmed multiple arbitration awards in favor of a cedent, rejecting the reinsurer's arguments to vacate the awards.
3) A Wisconsin federal court transferred a dispute over arbitrator selection and consolidation to New York based on forum selection clauses in the reinsurance contracts.
This order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order against the defendant. The court finds that the plaintiffs have sufficiently shown they have a protected interest in trade secrets and confidential information. They have also shown irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted, as the defendant is allegedly using protected information to directly compete with the plaintiffs in violation of a non-compete agreement. Additionally, the plaintiffs have no adequate legal remedy and have raised fair questions that they will likely succeed on their claims of breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and trademark infringement. Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo until a hearing can be held on a preliminary injunction.
This document is a court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation to remand a case back to state court. The court order provides additional analysis and comments supporting remand. Specifically, it finds that the plaintiffs' settlement demand of $155,000 did not establish by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as settlement demands often reflect puffing and posturing. An affidavit from the plaintiffs' attorney further supported that the demand was made without adequate information and to facilitate settlement discussions. Therefore, the defendants did not meet their burden to keep the case in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...mh37o
Federal court denied the motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and Anandhan Jayaraman. Court confirmed that PISL India and PISl PA are one and the same companies.
projet de traité négocié à Istanbul (anglais).pdfEdouardHusson
Ceci est le projet de traité qui avait été négocié entre Russes et Ukrainiens à Istanbul en mars 2022, avant que les Etats-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne ne détournent Kiev de signer.
Recent years have seen a disturbing rise in violence, discrimination, and intolerance against Christian communities in various Islamic countries. This multifaceted challenge, deeply rooted in historical, social, and political animosities, demands urgent attention. Despite the escalating persecution, substantial support from the Western world remains lacking.
This document summarizes issues that can arise when an insured faces litigation that may result in an excess judgment or claims that are both covered and not covered by their insurance policy. It discusses the inherent conflict of interest between the insurer and insured in these situations. It also outlines procedures for reasonableness hearings on settlement agreements between plaintiffs and insureds to determine if the settlement amount is reasonable. Key court cases are discussed that establish standards for reasonableness hearings and the rights and responsibilities of insurers and insureds in settlement agreements. Recommendations are provided for structuring settlement agreements to avoid issues of collusion.
This document is a memorandum opinion from a US District Court case between I/P Engine, Inc. and various defendants including AOL, Google, and others. The court is determining an ongoing royalty rate for the defendants' continued infringement of I/P Engine's patents related to online advertising systems. The court considers the 3.5% running royalty rate from the previous jury verdict as a starting point. After analyzing additional factors related to the defendants now being adjudged infringers, the court sets the ongoing royalty rate at 6.5%, consisting of a 4.6% base rate plus a 1.9% enhancement for willful infringement.
GS Holistic Court Opinion in Trademark DisputeMike Keyes
This document is a court filing that recommends granting in part a motion for default judgment against two defendants, Haz Investments LLC and Hazim Assaf, in a trademark infringement lawsuit. The plaintiff, GS Holistic LLC, alleges the defendants sold counterfeit products bearing GS's trademarks without authorization. As the defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the clerk entered default against them. The court filing analyzes the applicable legal standards and finds default judgment is warranted procedurally and substantively for some of the plaintiff's claims. It recommends awarding $15,000 in statutory damages, $782 in costs, and injunctive relief to the plaintiff.
John J. Pankauski is a partner with Pankauski Hauser PLLC in West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Pankauski has spent over 20 years of his career handling matters involving wills, trusts, estates, probates, and guardianships. His practice is limited to disputes, trials and appeals of such matters. He is AV Preeminent rated by Martindale Hubel.
This newsletter summarizes two recent court cases related to reinsurance:
1) The New York Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in a case involving allocation of an asbestos settlement between a cedent and reinsurers. The court found issues of fact around the reasonableness of the cedent's allocation assumptions.
2) The Second Circuit held that the question of whether a contract clause provides for arbitration is governed by federal common law when the Federal Arbitration Act applies through the New York Convention. The court affirmed that an insurance contract clause allowing medical examinations to determine disability was an arbitration clause.
The district court properly dismissed Janis Carmona's complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Janis sought to overturn state court decisions in federal district court, which does not have jurisdiction to review state court judgments. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars lower federal courts from reviewing state court decisions. Janis' only recourse was to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied her petition for certiorari. The district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Janis' complaint seeking to invalidate the state court rulings.
This document discusses approaches to sending and responding to patent-related cease and desist (C&D) letters. It describes the "classic" approach of sending non-assertive letters offering to discuss licensing without creating reasonable apprehension of a lawsuit. However, this gave patentees wide latitude. The Supreme Court's Medimmune decision changed this by allowing licensees to seek declaratory judgment without terminating licenses. As a result, patentees must now carefully consider whether and how to send C&D letters to avoid declaratory judgment actions. Upon receiving a C&D letter, alleged infringers should investigate, potentially engage counsel, limit involvement to prevent willfulness findings, and respond to the letter.
Doc1037 robert oneil paul ballard_todd hickman_seeking approval_settlement & ...malp2009
This document is a Trustee's Motion to Approve Compromise and Settlement with Defendants Robert O'Neal, Paul Ballard and Todd Hickman in an Adversary proceeding. The Trustee is seeking the court's approval of a settlement agreement between the Trustee and the Defendants that would allow portions of the Defendants' claims against the Debtor's estate and resolve all claims between the parties. Key terms of the settlement include allowing 75% of O'Neal's claim, 60% of Ballard's claim, and 60% of Hickman's claim. The Trustee believes the settlement is in the best interest of the estate to avoid costly and uncertain litigation.
San Diego Attorney Scott McMillan loses a federal lawsuit seeking a restraining order on the San Diego Sheriff's Department. As the court record demonstrates the basis for the motion was improper and the law did not support it.
B189989 gaggero/sulphur mountain v geraldine, somerset farms, john, maureen r...jamesmaredmond
This document summarizes a hearing in the Superior Court of Ventura County regarding Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Company's motion for attorneys' fees and the defendants' motion to tax costs. The defendants' attorney argued that the case should have been filed as a limited action in municipal court based on the amount in dispute. He also argued that the plaintiffs pursued the case unreasonably by not accepting the defendants' early $25,209 settlement offer, which included damages and attorneys' fees at that point, and instead drove up costs over the ensuing years.
Hieleras ruled deprivation of constitutional rightsBryan Johnson
This order grants a preliminary injunction requiring the US Border Patrol to comply with its own guidelines for holding detainees, based on evidence that detainees' basic human needs were not being met. The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that conditions violated detainees' due process rights by depriving them of adequate sleep, hygiene, medical care, food and water, and warmth. While acknowledging funding constraints, the court ruled constitutional rights cannot be denied for fiscal reasons and ordered compliance with guidelines to provide these basic needs as outlined in the Border Patrol's 2008 policy and TEDS standards.
American and English court systems follow the adversarial system where each client is represented by an attorney. The American court system ensures due process through procedural rules like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Generally, the litigation process begins with contacting an attorney for advice and then involves pleadings, discovery, pre-trial procedures, trial, and potential post-trial motions or appeals. Trials are used to present evidence and allow plaintiffs to prove their allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Karan Singh filed a suit in the subordinate court regarding land possession and valued the suit themselves at Rs. 2,950. The subordinate court ruled in favor of the defendants. Karan Singh then appealed to the district court.
2. The district court also ruled against Karan Singh. It was then determined that the correct valuation of the suit was Rs. 9,980, meaning the appeal should have gone to the high court instead of district court.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that while the district court technically did not have jurisdiction due to the undervaluation, Karan Singh could not claim prejudice since the undervaluation was due to their own actions. The ruling of the district court
This newsletter provides summaries of recent reinsurance cases:
1) The US Supreme Court clarified that arbitrators have broad authority to interpret contracts and their decisions should not be overturned even if their interpretation is incorrect, as long as they construed the contract.
2) A California court ordered parties to complete their arbitrator selection process and let the panel decide issues of consolidation and contractual provisions, rather than the court making those decisions.
3) A Connecticut court compelled arbitration in a fronting dispute, finding the reinsurer agreed to arbitrate based on references to underlying reinsurance agreements in an assumption agreement.
The newsletter also provides brief summaries of several other reinsurance court cases.
This document is an order from a United States District Court regarding cross-motions for summary judgment in a case involving a plaintiff who was imprisoned at a halfway house operated by the defendant. The court provides background on the case, including that the plaintiff sued over alleged unlawful seizure of his property and constitutional violations. The court evaluates the motions using the standard for summary judgment, granting the defendant's motion and denying the plaintiff's motion.
This newsletter summarizes recent court cases related to reinsurance:
1) The Third Circuit ruled that a reinsurer did not need to demonstrate prejudice from late notice of loss given by the reinsured in order to be relieved of indemnity obligations, applying New York law.
2) A New York federal court confirmed multiple arbitration awards in favor of a cedent, rejecting the reinsurer's arguments to vacate the awards.
3) A Wisconsin federal court transferred a dispute over arbitrator selection and consolidation to New York based on forum selection clauses in the reinsurance contracts.
This order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order against the defendant. The court finds that the plaintiffs have sufficiently shown they have a protected interest in trade secrets and confidential information. They have also shown irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted, as the defendant is allegedly using protected information to directly compete with the plaintiffs in violation of a non-compete agreement. Additionally, the plaintiffs have no adequate legal remedy and have raised fair questions that they will likely succeed on their claims of breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and trademark infringement. Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo until a hearing can be held on a preliminary injunction.
This document is a court order adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation to remand a case back to state court. The court order provides additional analysis and comments supporting remand. Specifically, it finds that the plaintiffs' settlement demand of $155,000 did not establish by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as settlement demands often reflect puffing and posturing. An affidavit from the plaintiffs' attorney further supported that the demand was made without adequate information and to facilitate settlement discussions. Therefore, the defendants did not meet their burden to keep the case in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Federal Court Denying Motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and A...mh37o
Federal court denied the motion by Satish Vuppalapati, Madhavi Vuppalapati and Anandhan Jayaraman. Court confirmed that PISL India and PISl PA are one and the same companies.
projet de traité négocié à Istanbul (anglais).pdfEdouardHusson
Ceci est le projet de traité qui avait été négocié entre Russes et Ukrainiens à Istanbul en mars 2022, avant que les Etats-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne ne détournent Kiev de signer.
Recent years have seen a disturbing rise in violence, discrimination, and intolerance against Christian communities in various Islamic countries. This multifaceted challenge, deeply rooted in historical, social, and political animosities, demands urgent attention. Despite the escalating persecution, substantial support from the Western world remains lacking.
मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय के सेवानिवृत्त न्यायाधीश और केंद्र और राज्य सरकार के नौकरशाहों सहित आठ अन्य लोगों की अध्यक्षता वाली एक उच्च स्तरीय समिति ने 2021 में NEET परीक्षा को खत्म करने की सिफारिश की थी। महत्वपूर्ण बात यह है कि रिपोर्ट में 2010-11 में ग्रामीण पृष्ठभूमि से तमिल छात्रों की संख्या में 61.5% की भारी गिरावट को दर्शाया गया है। इसके बजाय मेट्रो छात्रों में वृद्धि दर्ज की गई है।
Why We Chose ScyllaDB over DynamoDB for "User Watch Status"ScyllaDB
Yichen Wei and Adam Drennan share the architecture and technical requirements behind "user watch status" for a major global media streaming service, what that meant for their database, the pros and cons of the many options they considered for replacing DynamoDB, why they ultimately chose ScyllaDB, and their lessons learned so far.
विवादास्पद फिल्म के ट्रेलर से गाली-गलौज वाले दृश्य हटा दिए गए हैं, और जुर्माना लगाया गया है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट और बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट दोनों ने फिल्म की रिलीज पर रोक लगा दी है और उसे निलंबित कर दिया है। पहले यह फिल्म 7 जून और फिर 14 जून को रिलीज होने वाली थी, लेकिन अब यह 21 जून को रिलीज हो रही है।
Federal Authorities Urge Vigilance Amid Bird Flu Outbreak | The Lifesciences ...The Lifesciences Magazine
Federal authorities have advised the public to remain vigilant but calm in response to the ongoing bird flu outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, commonly known as bird flu.
लालू यादव की जीवनी LALU PRASAD YADAV BIOGRAPHYVoterMood
Discover the life and times of Lalu Prasad Yadav with a comprehensive biography in Hindi. Learn about his early days, rise in politics, controversies, and contribution.
18062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
15062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Shark Tank Jargon | Operational ProfitabilityTheUnitedIndian
Don't let fancy business words confuse you! This blog is your cheat sheet to understanding the Shark Tank Jargon. We'll translate all the confusing terms like "valuation" (how much the company is worth) and "royalty" (a fee for using someone's idea). You'll be swimming with the Sharks like a pro in no time!
19 जून को बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने विवादित फिल्म ‘हमारे बारह’ को 21 जून को थिएटर में रिलीज करने का रास्ता साफ कर दिया, हालांकि यह सुनिश्चित करने के बाद कि फिल्म निर्माता कुछ आपत्तिजनक अंशों को हटा दें।
La defensa del expresidente Juan Orlando Hernández, declarado culpable por narcotráfico en EE. UU., solicitó este viernes al juez Kevin Castel que imponga una condena mínima de 40 años de prisión.
17062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
#WenguiGuo#WashingtonFarm Guo Wengui Wolf son ambition exposed to open a far...rittaajmal71
Since fleeing to the United States in 2014, Guo Wengui has founded a number of projects in the United States, such as GTV Media Group, GTV private equity, farm loan project, G Club Operations Co., LTD., and Himalaya Exchange.
#WenguiGuo#WashingtonFarm Guo Wengui Wolf son ambition exposed to open a far...
Lanham act (1)
1. Damages for Trademark Claims Under
The Lanham Act: Lessons Learned From
Sands Taylor & Wood v. The Quaker Oats Co.
and Trovan, Ltd. v. Pfizer, Inc.
Susan Somers Neal
Neal & McDevitt®
2. Presentation Highlights
Overview of damages under The
Lanham Act
Sands Taylor & Wood v. The Quaker
Oats Co.
Trovan, Ltd. v. Pfizer, Inc.
Lessons Learned
3. Overview of damages under
The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117
Four bases for recovery
– Defendant’s profits
– Plaintiff’s damages
– Costs
– Attorney’s fees
Only in exceptional cases
Treble damages
Only if willful/intentional
4. Sands Taylor & Wood v. The
Quaker Oats Co. (Sands I)
Decided December 18,
1990 by U.S. District
Court Judge Prentice
Marshall
THIRST-AID registered mark
vs. GATORADE IS THIRST-
AID advertising slogan.
The court held that there
was a likelihood of
confusion.
Plaintiff was awarded
nearly $25 million plus
pre-judgment interest,
attorney’s fees and costs.
5. Sands I
Rationale for award of defendant’s
profits
– Make Infringement Unprofitable
– Prevent Unjust Enrichment
– Deter Future Infringing Conduct
– But Avoid Awarding a Windfall to
Plaintiff
6. Sands I
Types of Monetary Relief
– Plaintiff's Actual Damages
– Corrective Advertising
– Reasonable Royalties
– Attorney’s Fees
– Prejudgment interest and costs
7. Sands Taylor & Wood v. The
Quaker Oats Co. (Sands II)
Decided July 9, 1991
by U.S. District Court
Judge Prentice
Marshall
The court addressed
the terms of the
injunction, the
calculation of costs,
attorney's fees
prejudgment interest
and defendant's post-
trial profits.
8. Sands II
Defendant’s profits throughout
period of infringement (over $31
million)
Prejudgment interest (over $10
million)
Plaintiff's attorneys’ fees and
expenses (over $600,000)
Defendant’s costs (over $30,000)
9. Sands Taylor & Wood v. The
Quaker Oats Co. (Sands III)
Decided on September 2,
1992 by the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Circuit Judge Cudahy
wrote the opinion of the
court with Circuit Judge
Ripple concurring and
Circuit Judge Fairchild
dissenting in part.
The court reversed the
district court’s award of
defendant's profits and
remanded for a
recalculation of damages.
10. Sands III
Reversed of award of defendant's profits
and remanded for redetermination of
damages
Affirmed award of attorneys’ fees and
expenses
Affirmed Finding of Bad Faith
11. Sands III
The Three Bears
– Judge Cudahy: $24 million is a
windfall to Sands (too hot)
– Judge Ripple: reasonable royalty may
not be enough to act as deterrence (too
cold)
– Judge Fairchild (dissent): exercise of
discretion should be affirmed (just
right)
12. Sands Taylor & Wood v. The
Quaker Oats Co. (Sands IV)
Decided on June 7, 1993
by U.S. District Court
Judge Prentice Marshall
The case was on remand
from the Seventh Circuit
The court used a
“reasonable royalty rate”
to calculate damages and
awarded plaintiff over
$26 million in damages
and pre-judgment interest
13. Sands IV
Calculation of reasonable royalty rate
– Rate previously paid by licensee
– Licensor’s policies
– Nature and scope of licensee’s use
– Special value to infringer
– Profitability of infringing use
– Lack of viable alternatives
– Opinions of experts
– Amount parties would have agreed upon voluntarily
– Rate previously received by licensor
14. Sands Taylor & Wood v. The
Quaker Oats Co. (Sands V)
Decided on September 13,
1994 by the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Circuit Judge Cudahy
wrote the opinion of the
court with Circuit Judge
Fairchild concurring.
The court affirmed the
base royalty rate but
reversed the doubling of
the base rate and
remanded to the district
court for further
explanation of the basis
for the doubling.
15. Sands V
Seventh Circuit affirms the base
royalty rate but reverses
enhancement (doubling)
Remand for further explanation of
the enhancement (doubling)
16. Sands Taylor & Wood v. The
Quaker Oats Co. (Sands VI)
Decided on April 11,
1995 by U.S. Court
Judge Prentice
Marshall
The court further
explained its basis for
doubling of the base
royalty rate and re-
entered judgment on
remand for the
amount reversed by
the Seventh Circuit.
17. Sands VI
“The enhancement is not a penalty. It reflects the
inadequacy of the base royalty award in light of the
"circumstances of the case," the extraordinary
profits defendant realized as a consequence of its
deliberate infringement. As now Chief Judge Posner
observed in Gorenstein, the treble damage provision
of the Lanham Act is ‘properly invoked when, as in
this case, the infringement is deliberate.’ 874 F.2d at
436. Furthermore, I assure the court of appeals that
I did not "double-count" the factors which I used to
determine the base royalty. I can say no more.”
18. Trovan, Ltd. v. Pfizer, Inc.
TROVAN for transponders
used in animal
identification and
TROVAN for antibiotic
preparations
Jury awarded $5 million
in compensatory
damages, $3 million in
reasonable royalties and
$135 million in punitive
damages
The court denied an
award of profits
Numerous post-trial
motions
19. Trovan
Punitive Damages
– California common law requires proof of
competition and no punitive damages under
the Lanham Act.
– In any event, the amount is excessive.
– The court finds that $1,500,000 (3 times the
value of the mark) is the most that could be
awarded.
20. Trovan
Actual Damages
1. Injury to reputation or goodwill
Must be direct evidence
Cannot be inferred
Analogy to defamation
Held: Sufficient showing to warrant award
of damages
21. Trovan
Actual Damages
2. Corrective Advertising
Evidence on this issue was stricken
22. Trovan
Actual Damages
3. Damage Award Excessive
“There is something basically unseemly and
grossly uneconomical in an award to a small
company of an amount of money several
times its net worth to use to resuscitate an
infringed trademark”
Held: Only direct evidence of value was
$500,000 – the most the jury could have
awarded. Court remits $500,000. If plaintiffs
refuse to accept this amount, new trial
granted.
23. Trovan
Reasonable Royalties
– The Ninth Circuit does not
recognize this as measure of
damages where there is no
evidence that a party intended
the license the trademark (unlike
Sands v. Quaker).
24. Trovan
The Issue of Willfulness
– The Ninth Circuit has not addressed
“bad faith” in the context of reverse
confusion.
– The Sands decision is in direct
conflict with Trovan
– Held: Vacates jury finding of bad
faith; alternatively, grants new trial.
No bad faith, no punitive damages.
25. Trovan
New Trial Ordered
– Misconduct of plaintiff’s
attorneys permeated the trial to
such an extent that the Court is
convinced the jury was
influenced by passion and
prejudice in reaching its verdict.
26. Lessons Learned
Bad Faith/Willfulness Required
Reasonable Royalties May Not Be
Available
Be Prepared with Specific Proof of
Damage
and
Don’t make the judge angry….