LJN Newsletters

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.

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 Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 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 Teva decision is expected to increase declaratory judgment challenges by generic drug companies and help speed generic drugs to market when those challenges are successful.

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. Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. Elle Belle, LLC, 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. See also Hurley Int'l LLC v. Volta, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1339 (T.T.A.B. 2007).

News about lawyers and law firms in the insurance industry.

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

It is a common enough scenario ' a company purchases a directors and officers liability policy (a 'D&O Policy') ' to protect against any claims that may be brought against its directors and officers. The D&O Policy also may contain what is termed 'entity coverage' meaning that the policy may cover claims made both against the directors and officers, as well as the company itself. While the D&O Policy may be relatively straightforward in providing for the rights and obligations of the respective parties, if the company files for bankruptcy a whole host of issues arise. In this scenario, the laws governing bankruptcy and insurance may collide and, in some instances, are not easily reconcilable.

General liability policies are frequently ' and incorrectly ' described as covering 'bodily injury' and 'property damage.' More accurately, the policies promise to 'pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of 'bodily injury' or 'property damage' to which this insurance applies.' ISO CG 0001 12 04 (2003) ('CGL'), at 1.

Several recent cases in Ohio, following in the wake of the 2003 California decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934 (Feb. 3, 2003), provide new insights into the problems companies with complex corporate histories face when seeking coverage for long tail liabilities.