Today the USPTO sent out an email blast stating that citing to Covid and explaining how it has resulted in nonuse of a mark may be sufficient to meet the standard for excusable nonuse under Section 8 or 71 of a U.S.A. federal trademark act. In the life of a trademark registration, the owner of […]read more
Faier on IP Law: Personal Jurisdiction and Rubik’s Brand v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A. 2021 WL 825668 (NDIL) March 4, 2021.
This is a great case that raises the thought provoking issue of personal jurisdiction in federal court in instances of trademark infringement. Plaintiff filed suit against 676 online sellers arguing that each infringed plaintiffs with regard to Rubik’s cube. We get this case because one defendant from China, Yoyoly, showed up to argue that the […]read more
Faier on IP Law: Script Transform, LLC v. Motorola Mobility, 2021 WL 825666 – Venue in a Patent Matter. (NDIL) March 1, 2021.
This is a proceeding about venue. Motorola moved for dismissal under Federal Rule 12(b)(3) arguing that plaintiff lacked venue to bring its patent action in the Northern District of Illinois. The court granted the motion. Venue in a patent matter is governed by 28 U.S.C. Section 1400(b) that states that the action may be brought […]read more
Faier on the Law: Going after Infringers, the Joinder / Misjoinder Problem of Harley-Davidson. I feel for you! H-D U.S.A., L.L.C. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, 2021 WL 780486. March 1, 2021.
So a month or so ago it was Hon. Judge Kennelly and on Monday, March 1, 2021, it was Hon. Judge Marvin E. Aspen who tried to explain to the bar that there are limitations on joining defendants in an action. Now, Judge Kennelly’s action was on patents. Judge Aspen’s case in on trademarks. Specifically, […]read more
Faier on the law: LHO Chicago River, L.L.C. v. Rosemoor Suites, LLC, 2021 WL 649200, Feb. 19, 2021 (CA7) – If you want attorney fees, then follow Octane Fitness!
The issue in this case is award of attorney fees in an aborted trademark infringement matter. Can counsel for the defendant get legal fees where the owner of a trademark withdrew the suit after an adverse finding in a Motion for Preliminary Injunction where the mark was rather descriptive? This is the case of the […]read more