Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
This article discusses the development of the <i>Fobian</i> rule and other courts' treatment of it. The article also summarizes the Supreme Court's reasoning in abrogating the rule in <i>Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (In re Pacific Gas & Electric Co.)</i>, 549 U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 1199 (2007).
Features
Manufacturers and distributors use traditional stores and Internet sites to sell goods and services. But too often, when identical items are offered simultaneously through these channels, Internet price advertisements divert so much business from the traditional stores that those traditional outlets stop offering the items. MAP ('minimum advertised price') agreements, which prevent items from being advertised below some specified amount (the minimum advertised price), are often employed to maintain access to traditional and Internet sales channels.
Features
The Second Circuit recently ruled that, in the absence of specific Congressional legislation, owners of famous foreign trademarks must show use within the United States to avail themselves of the protections offered by American federal law. The Court of Appeals also certified questions to the district court as to whether New York common law protects a famous foreign trademark that only has been used in a foreign country. The case is an instructive overview of the law of trademark abandonment and the famous marks doctrine.
Features
Continuing the recent trend of court decisions expanding jurisdiction over declaratory judgment challenges to patents, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the 'Federal Circuit' or the 'court') opened the door to increased challenges to drug patents in <i>Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.</i>, 482 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Federal Circuit ruled that a generic drug company could, under the appropriate circumstances, pre-emptively seek a declaratory judgment that certain drug patents listed in the FDA's Orange Book are invalid or not infringed. Generic drug companies thus can have a court resolve patent infringement issues before undertaking the expense of launching a generic drug under the threat of patent litigation and any resulting injunction or treble damages for willful infringement. The <i>Teva</i> decision is expected to increase declaratory judgment challenges by generic drug companies and help speed generic drugs to market when those challenges are successful.
Features
Continuing a recent trend of toughening its position on fraud, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ('TTAB') has cancelled yet another registration because the registrant had failed to use the mark on every good for which it was registered. <i>Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. Elle Belle, LLC,</i> Cancellation No. 92042991 (T.T.A.B. April 9, 2007). This case is the second precedential decision this year in which the TTAB has cancelled a registration as fraudulently obtained because of overly broad claims regarding use of the mark. <i>See also Hurley Int'l LLC v. Volta,</i> 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1339 (T.T.A.B. 2007).
Features
Everyone knows that a manager who expresses discriminatory views and then fires or disciplines an employee belonging to the disfavored group may create a claim against the employer. But what happens when an unbiased manager relies on the recommendation of another supervisor who, unbeknownst to the decision maker, is a raging bigot?
Features
<i>Hide a dagger in a smile. Murder with a borrowed knife. Loot a burning house.</i> If you cannot anticipate these and the other classic 'Thirty-Six Stratagems' that are widely studied and practiced in China, you may be perilously unprepared to pursue business, including legal business, in the world's largest market. And while China may be an extreme example, analogs of these deceptive and sometimes corrupt practices appear in other cultures worldwide.
Features
Discussion and analysis of the latest rulings.
Features
When the City of New York sells property subject to statutorily authorized conditions, what language in the deed is necessary to ensure that the conditions bind subsequent purchasers? That question confronted the Court of Appeals in <i>328 Owners Corp. v. 300 West 86 Oaks Corp</i>. (NYLJ 4/4/07, p. 18, col. 1), in which the Court of Appeals held that successor purchasers were bound by deed language restricting the original purchaser to use of the property for rehabilitation or conservation of the existing building or construction of one to four unit dwellings.