We had a successful result for a defendant in a pretty interesting case.
Can a take-down notice sent to an ecommerce site such as eBay or Amazon expose the IP rights-owner to a defamation suit? Yes (or No), says a
Martin Schwimmer Blogs
Latest from Martin Schwimmer
Pom Wonderful Trade Dress Suit Dismissed at 12b6 – SDNY
Judges tend not to go thru a full likelihood-of-confusion analysis at 12b6 but here you are.
The Court found that the WONDERFUL packaging and Defendant’s packaging do not possess “striking similarity” (sic). The Court notes that while their were similarities
SDNY: Justiciable Controversy over Brazilian Bum Bum Cream
Apollo Health and Beauty Care Inc. v. Sol De Janeiro USA Inc. et al, No. 1:2022cv07719 – Document 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2023):
Text of Complaint in X Corp v. Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) in CD Cal, regarding not-for-profit’s reports on Twitter disinformation policies
The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a not for profit organization that publishes reports on among other things, hate speech and disinformation on social media. Its reports contain the “big if true” allegations that a small number of social
SDNY: Pepsi prevails in RISE v MTN DEW RISE
After remand from the 2d Circuit, SDNY grants Pepsi’s motion for summary judgment on all counts, dismissing Plaintiff’s causes regarding Pepsi’s use of MTN DEW RISE for a caffeinated energy drink, based on plaintiff’s use of RISE for cold brew
All Things Abitron v Hetronic
RED GOLD: SDNY: Solid 21 v Richemont – Summary Judgment
Has Solid 21 achieved secondary meaning in term RED GOLD, a form of gold with high copper content, used for luxury watches. Whether Richemont used the term descriptively will be question for jury, summary judgment denied.
SDNY: Service of Process in China Through Hague
Plaintiff failed to show exigent circumstances justifying service by email as an alternate to Hague service.
DKH Retail v 28142187764
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Earlier today, the Court entered a Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order. ECF No. 43. The Court largely adopted the order proposed by Plaintiff DKH Retail Ltd. (“DKH”), with one notable exc