By Sharona Hakimi EU Court Advisor Supports Google Keyword Searches in Trademark Suit On September 22, Reuters reported that an advocate general to the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court, stated that Google did not infringe trademark rights of luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton (LVMH). Google sells keywords that use the company’s trademarks, but Advocate General Poiares Maduro concluded that trademark protections do not extend to search advertising keywords because they are not considered a product sold to ... Read More...
Archive for the ‘Jurisdiction’ Category
The Federal Circuit Provides Protection to Medical Diagnostics By Brittany Blueitt – Edited by Caity Ross Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., Case No. 2008-1403 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2009) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) reversed the ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patents 6,355,623 (“the ’623 patent”) and 6,680,302 (“the ’302 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ... Read More...
CAFC Requires a Clear and Convincing Intent to Deceive By Adrienne Baker – Edited by Stephanie Young In re Bose Corp., No. 2008-1448, 2009 WL 2709312 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 31, 2009). Opinion On August 31, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed and remanded the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decision, which ruled that fraud is committed when a registrant or applicant makes material misrepresentations it knows or should have known to be false or misleading. ... Read More...
By Andrew Jacobs ISPs Found Liable for Websites’ Trademark and Copyright Infringement Computerworld and Ars Technica report that on August 28, a federal jury handed down a $32.4 million judgment against two ISPs that hosted websites selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton products. Louis Vuitton successfully argued on a theory of contributory infringement, overcoming the ISPs’ claims of immunity under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “safe harbor” provisions. Evidence that the ISPs had received and failed to respond to notices of the ... Read More...
Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova Inc. By Debbie Rosenbaum – Edited by Stephanie Young Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova Inc., 2008-1459, -1476 (CAFC Sept. 3, 2009) Opinion On September 3, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s jury verdict finding that Martek’s patents were valid and infringed, but reversed the points of error Martek asserted on cross appeal. The Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), sitting as an expanded five-member panel: 1) ... Read More...
