Fendi Adele S.R.L. v. Ashley Reed Trading, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13934 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2010)
The Plaintiff, the famous Italian fashion design company Fendi sued Defendant, Ashley Reed trading company for selling counterfeit leather handbags. Plaintiff successfully alleged that Defendant sold counterfeit handbags, of a lower quality than the real Fendi brand, willfully and with bad faith. Nordstrom Rack and Off Fifth were among the stores that unwittingly bought the counterfeit Fendi handbags from Ashley Reed. The bags were spotted as counterfeit by the lower quality of leather and the missing hologram Fendi security logos. Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof for acquiescence, laches and unclean hands, in light of repeated cease and desist demands from Plaintiff. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted as to their request to strike Defendants' affirmative defenses and as to their claims of trademark counterfeiting and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, common law unfair competition under New York law, and trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) and Section 360-l of the New York General Business Law. The Defendants were permanently enjoined under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act from purchasing, offering for sale, or selling any item bearing the word "Fendi" and/or any of Fendi's registered trademarks without the express written permission of Plaintiffs; and it was further ordered that the matter be referred to a Magistrate Judge for a determination as to the appropriateness of an accounting of Defendants' profits and, if warranted, an assessment of Plaintiffs' damages.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
University of Miami Plagiarism Case, Revisiting the Dastar case precedent: The Lanham Act Does Not Create a Cause of Action for Plagiarism.
Andela v. Univ. of Miami, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20432, 45-47 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2010)
Plaintiff Valentine B. Andela sued his former employer University of Miami and also University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill based on actions arising out of alleged plagiarism of post-doctoral research manuscripts. Andela brought these actions pro se. Andela is a physician-scientist from Cameroon, Africa, whose area of study is translational cancer research and international technology transfer to Africa. Andela was employed by UM from June of 2005 to September 25, 2006, as a post-doctoral associate in the Viral Oncology program at UM's Sylvester Comprehensive Care Center (the "Sylvester Center"). Throughout his employment as a post-doctoral associate, Andela worked in the laboratory of Dr. William J. Harrington, Jr. Plaintiff Angela alleges that Harrington "passed off" the Revised Manuscript by submitting a "mutilated version of Dr. Andela's work to the journal Blood, listing Dr. Andela as the primary author without Dr. Andela's required approval, consent, and signature . . . ." Andela then alleged that UM and UNC "reverse passed off" the Revised Manuscript to Cancer Research by plagiarizing and submitting his work without his name attributed to the article and without regard to his request that they refrain from doing so. The According to the controlling decision in the Dastar case, Section 43 of the Lanham Act, does not apply to communicative products such as the Revised Manuscript. Accordingly, Andela's allegations failed to state a claim and were dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff Valentine B. Andela sued his former employer University of Miami and also University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill based on actions arising out of alleged plagiarism of post-doctoral research manuscripts. Andela brought these actions pro se. Andela is a physician-scientist from Cameroon, Africa, whose area of study is translational cancer research and international technology transfer to Africa. Andela was employed by UM from June of 2005 to September 25, 2006, as a post-doctoral associate in the Viral Oncology program at UM's Sylvester Comprehensive Care Center (the "Sylvester Center"). Throughout his employment as a post-doctoral associate, Andela worked in the laboratory of Dr. William J. Harrington, Jr. Plaintiff Angela alleges that Harrington "passed off" the Revised Manuscript by submitting a "mutilated version of Dr. Andela's work to the journal Blood, listing Dr. Andela as the primary author without Dr. Andela's required approval, consent, and signature . . . ." Andela then alleged that UM and UNC "reverse passed off" the Revised Manuscript to Cancer Research by plagiarizing and submitting his work without his name attributed to the article and without regard to his request that they refrain from doing so. The According to the controlling decision in the Dastar case, Section 43 of the Lanham Act, does not apply to communicative products such as the Revised Manuscript. Accordingly, Andela's allegations failed to state a claim and were dismissed with prejudice.
Counterfeit Cartoon Costumes, and required notice for seizure and destruction under Article 15, section 1116(d)(1)(A)
Lyons P'ship, L.P. v. D&L Amusement & Entm't, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28571 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010)
The company that owned intellectual property rights to the comic characters Barney, Baby Bop, Bob the Builder and Clifford the Big Red Dog brought an action for federal trademark, false designation of origin, copyright, and related state claims against Defendants for producing and selling infringing costumes portraying these characters. The Plainitff was not awarded remedies under Article 15, sections 1116(d)(1)(A) and 1118 for seizure and destruction of the infringing goods because the requisite ten day notice under section 1116(d)(1)(A) was not sent to Defendants. However, the Plaintiff was awarded statutory damages, attorneys fees and costs from each of the Defendants. Also, a permanent injunction was granted in favor of Plaintiff to prevent each Defendant from using the infringing trademarks and copyrights in commerce.
The company that owned intellectual property rights to the comic characters Barney, Baby Bop, Bob the Builder and Clifford the Big Red Dog brought an action for federal trademark, false designation of origin, copyright, and related state claims against Defendants for producing and selling infringing costumes portraying these characters. The Plainitff was not awarded remedies under Article 15, sections 1116(d)(1)(A) and 1118 for seizure and destruction of the infringing goods because the requisite ten day notice under section 1116(d)(1)(A) was not sent to Defendants. However, the Plaintiff was awarded statutory damages, attorneys fees and costs from each of the Defendants. Also, a permanent injunction was granted in favor of Plaintiff to prevent each Defendant from using the infringing trademarks and copyrights in commerce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
