Sushi Nozawa, LLC, owner of the popular sushi destination Sugarfish, is challenging the HRB Experience LLC over use of the term “Hand Roll Bar.” IP Attorneys Scott Hervey and Josh Escovedo discuss the lawsuit, including descriptive versus generic terms, secondary meaning, and the potential strategies of the parties. Continue Reading The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Sushi Restaurants Battle for Control Over Hand Roll Trademark
Imagine litigating an infringement case for two years, and after a nine day jury trial, obtaining a jury’s verdict that says you’ve established infringement and awards your client $5,000,000. Then you realize that the jury has awarded your client $0 in actual damages, and the entire $5,000,000 sum is for punitive damages. The Ninth Circuit in an unpublished opinion in Monster Energy Company v. Integrated Supply Network, LLC (July 22, 2020), reiterated that a party is not entitled to punitive damages without a finding of actual damages.
Monster Energy Company is a well-known energy drink giant that does a lot of sponsorship in the motorsports area with its distinctive green M logo. In 2017, it sued Integrated Supply Network for infringement of its Monster marks. Integrated Supply is a Florida automotive-supply company that sold various Monster Mobile and ISN Monster lines of goods that Monster Energy Company claimed infringed on its marks. Continue Reading You Must Prove Actual Damages if You Want Punitive Damages in an Infringement Action
An unpublished decision from the Northern District of California emphasizes how important it is for attorneys to follow patent local rules.
Patent local rules are rules that many federal district courts have for patent infringement cases. These rules supplement the regular local rules for that court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and allow the courts that have a lot of patent infringement cases to more efficiently manage those cases. Patent local rules are also helpful to the parties and their counsel, as they provide a standard structure and some certainty to the litigation process. Continue Reading Make Sure You Follow the Patent Local Rules!
In f’real Foods, LLC et al v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. et al, 1-16-cv-00041 (DDE 2020-07-16, Order) (Colm F. Connolly), plaintiffs freal Foods, LLC and Rich Products Corporation sued defendants Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. and Hershey Creamery Company for infringement of four patents on four accused products that are high performance blenders manufactured by Hamilton Beach. After a four-day jury trial, the jury found that all four accused products infringed various claims of the asserted patents, and that none of the asserted patents are invalid. The Court then turned to the plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction.
The Court first noted that a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate the four eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388,391 (2006) factors: “( 1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and ( 4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” To satisfy the irreparable injury factor, a patentee must establish ( 1) that absent an injunction it will suffer irreparable injury and (2) that a sufficiently strong causal nexus relates the injury to the infringement. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court has cautioned lower courts that “[a]n injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course” and when “a less drastic remedy … [is] sufficient to redress [ a plaintiffs] injury, no recourse to the additional and extraordinary relief of an injunction [is] warranted.” Continue Reading Irreparable Harm for Permanent Injunction Supported by Lost Profits Award
Watch: Author Josh Escovedo and trademark law professor Alexandra Roberts delve into the issues around the Redskins name change.
On Monday, July 13, 2020, the ownership group of the Washington Redskins (the “Team”) announced that it will abandon the Redskins team name after nearly 30 years of controversy. The decision, despite what the Team says, is likely the product of societal pressure, which was reinforced by powerful corporations, such as Nike and Amazon, that refused to sell Redskins merchandise because of the Team’s disparaging moniker. Within days of the corporations refusing to sell their merchandise, the Team announced that it would undertake a “thorough review” of its name. Just over a week later, the Redskins announced that the name would be “retire[d].” But before you give the Team too much credit, let’s consider what it took to get here. Continue Reading After Nearly 30 Years of Controversy, the Washington Redskins Will Retire the Redskins Team Name and Trademark
