Weintraub Firm

Subscribe to Weintraub Firm's Posts

by James Kachmar

The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether a “first publication” exclusion in an insurance policy applies to trademark infringement claims. In United National Insurance Company v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., et al., decided February 2, 2009, the Ninth Circuit resolved a split among lower courts and held that a “first publication” exclusion did apply under California law.

 

In December 1997, Sunset Health Products, Inc. (“Sunset”) hired Spectrum to advertise and distribute a diet drink called “Hollywood 48 Hour Miracle Diet” drink. Celebrity Products Direct, Inc. (“Celebrity”) was formed a short time later and began selling a similar product, “The Original Hollywood Celebrity Diet” drink. Spectrum then terminated its contract with Sunset and begin marketing the Celebrity diet drink.   Sunset made repeated demands that Spectrum cease infringing on its Miracle Diet trademark. 

Continue Reading “First Publication” Infringement Claims and Insurance Policy Exclusions

By Jeff Pietsch

Last year, Google lost the first round of a court battle against Vulcan Golf, a golf club manufacturer, in a trademark and cybersquatting dispute. In that decision, the US District Court in Illinois ruled that Google could be sued for its role in serving ads on websites that use domain names that violate trademark and cybersquatting laws. In the latest round of decisions on this case, the court denied class certification damaging the plaintiffs’ hopes in prevailing in this matter.  

 Continue Reading Class Action Certification Denied in Google Trademark Case

By Scott Hervey

While the producers of American Idol, FreemantleMedia North America, appreciate just how much people love the show, it’s now obvious Freemantle doesn’t agree with the old adage that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. In late December, Freemantle filed suit against a strip club in Austin, Texas that ran a stripper talent contest, and called it “Stripper Idol” and also used the American Idol logo. Freemantle claimed that the strip club owner’s use of “Stripper Idol” in connection with its stripper talent contest constitutes Federal trademark infringement because such use “is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association” of the strip club owners with Freemantle or the American Idol program.

Continue Reading Stripper Idol Hits a Flat Note with Owners of American Idol

by Scott Cameron

Trademark infringement is generally the improper use of a competitor’s trademark that results in the customer buying one product thinking it is another. The classic example is when the new competitor adopts the name of the established competitor, or varies the name ever so slightly. Company A calls its new product “TheUltraWidget” to trade on the goodwill Company B has built in its best-selling “UltraWidget.”

These cases are pretty simple. If the consumer is likely to be confused by Company A’s use of Company B’s trademark, and Company B is harmed by (or Company A profits from) that use, there is actionable trademark infringement. As long as Company B can establish the elements of the claim, it is entitled to injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Continue Reading Metatags and Hidden Text – Hidden Trademark Infringement

by Audrey Millemann

In Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the test for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102(a).

The patents in the case covered systems for conducting credit card transactions over the internet. The existing systems involve four different entities: a customer, the issuing bank for the customer’s credit card, a merchant, and the merchant’s bank. The inventor developed his system in response to two problems with the existing systems. First, the existing systems required prospective purchasers to send their confidential credit card information to an unknown merchant over the Internet. Second, in the existing systems, the banks that had issued the customers’ credit cards imposed stringent requirements on merchants.
 Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements for Anticipation of Patent Claims