Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Instant One Media, Inc. v. EzFauxDecor, LLC et al., No. 22-11374 (11th Cir. Mar. 9, 2023), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a damages award from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
|Instant One Media, Inc. (Instant One) sued EZ Faux Decor, LLC (EZ) for breach of contract under Georgia state law and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Both sell vinyl adhesive products to resurface countertops and appliances. In 2017, Instant One and EZ settled previous litigation where EZ agreed not to use the term "instant" within two words of the terms "granite" or "stainless." Instant One then registered trademarks for "instant granite" and "instant stainless." By 2018, EZ was violating the parties' settlement agreement and infringing Instant One's trademarks.
Instant One sued, alleging a state law breach of contract claim and federal law trademark infringement claim. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Instant One as to liability for breach of contract, and the liability for trademark infringement and damages as to both claims went to trial. During the trial, Instant One called its President to testify to the primary issues and its lawyer to testify to his attorneys' fees. The jury found EZ liable on the trademark claim and awarded Instant One three types of damages: $275,000 actual damages for either the breach of contract or trademark infringement; $500,000 in disgorgement on the trademark claim; and $260,000 in attorneys' fees under a Georgia state law fee-shifting statute. The district court denied EZ's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and entered judgment for Instant One. EZ appealed that denial with respect to each type of damages.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
To gauge the level of risk and uncover potential gaps, compliance and privacy leaders should collaborate to consider how often they are monitoring third parties, what intelligence they are gathering with and about their partners and vendors, and whether their risk management practices have been diminished due to cost and resource constraints.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.