Features
Second Circuit Finds No Trademark Infringement in Targeted Internet Advertising Case
On June 27, 2005, the Second Circuit overturned a lower court's determination that an Internet advertising company's delivery of targeted, contextually relevant pop-up ads constituted trademark infringement. The plaintiff, 1-800 Contacts, Inc. ("1-800"), sued WhenU.com ("WhenU") for trademark infringement as well as multiple other federal copyright, state infringement, and common law claims. The Second Circuit limited its review of the case to the plaintiff's Lanham Act claim, remanding the rest of 1-800's claims back to the district court.
Dictionary Dethroned: Phillips v. AWH Corporation
To rely on the dictionary or not to rely on the dictionary, and to what extent, that is the question. A question which after frenzied anticipation by the patent bar, the <i>en banc</i> U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in its July 12, 2005 landmark decision of <i>Phillips v. AWH Corp.</i>, No. 03-1269, -1286, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13954 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2005), has answered: While dictionaries may be useful to assist in the understanding of a commonly understood meaning of a claim term, the proper starting point is the patent specification and corresponding prosecution history.
IP News
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Features
CoStar Reopens Settled Fixation Issue in Online Digital Environment
In a little-noticed and as yet un-cited alternative holding last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit undermined a previously unbroken line of cases holding that electronic copies of digital works are "fixed" within the meaning of the Copyright Act if they exist in the random access memory ("RAM") of a computer. <i>CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc.</i>, 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004).
Features
Attorney Fees Rulings
A Manhattan federal district court declined award attorney fees to defendant booking agents and concert promoters who prevailed in a suit by black concert promoters alleging race discrimination in concert bookings. <i>Rowe Entertainment Inc. v. The William Morris Agency Inc.</i>, 98 Civ. 8272 (RPP).
Features
Court Watch
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
News Briefs
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
Recent FTC Staff Advisory Opinions
The staff of the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") that administers the FTC's Franchise Rule issues informal staff advisory opinions in response to inquiries concerning the applicability of the Rule. So far during 2005, the FTC staff has issued three such opinions.
Wave Goodbye to Waivers of Jury Trials
In a decision that all franchisors need to note, on Aug. 4, 2005 the California Supreme Court ruled that pre-dispute waivers of a jury trial in a civil matter are unconstitutional under the California constitution. Many commercial agreements include a pre-dispute waiver of a jury trial so that businesses that prefer not to submit disputes to arbitration can elect to litigate claims and have their disputes heard by a judge rather than submit to a jury trial. The high court in <i>Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (PricewaterhouseCoopers)</i>, 2005 Cal. LEXIS 8586, 4 (2005), affirmed an appellate court's decision to reject the 1991 appellate court decision upholding pre-dispute waivers of jury trials in <i>Trizec Properties Inc. v. Superior Court</i>, 229 Cal.App.3d 1616 (1991). This case will alter the way commercial contracts — from joint venture agreements, to franchise agreements, real estate leases and other contracts — are written. The <i>Grafton</i> decision is a call to California-based franchisors, and franchisors with franchises in California, to take stock of their decisions and provisions regarding dispute resolution.
How 7-Eleven Developed a New System-Wide Franchise Agreement: Process and Results
In the first installment, published in July, we provided the background and general arrangements and actions 7-Eleven used in developing a new franchise agreement for virtually its entire 3400-store franchise system. In this installment, we discuss what occurred and why and what was learned from this effort. Please refer to the first installment for defined terms.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Coverage Issues Stemming from Dry Cleaner Contamination SuitsIn recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.Read More ›
- 'Insurable Interest' and the Scope of First-Party CoverageThis article reviews the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of insurable interest, and certain recent cases that have grappled with the scope of insurable interest and have articulated a more meaningful application of the concept to claims under first-party property policies.Read More ›
- The Flight to Quality and Workplace ExperienceThat the pace of change is "accelerating" is surely an understatement. What seemed almost a near certainty a year ago — that law firms would fully and permanently embrace work-from-home — is experiencing a seeming reversal. While many firms have, in fact, embraced hybrid operations, the meaning of hybrid has evolved from "office optional," to an average required 2 days a week, to now many firms coming out with four-day work week mandates — this time, with teeth.Read More ›
- AI or Not To AI: Observations from Legalweek NY 2023This year at Legalweek, there was little doubt on what the annual takeaway topic would be. As much as I tried to avoid it for fear of beating the proverbial dead horse, it was impossible not to talk about generative AI, ChatGPT, and all that goes with it. Some fascinating discussions were had and many aspects of AI were uncovered.Read More ›
- The Powerful Impact of The Non-Foreclosure Notice of PendencyRPAPL ' 1331 and RPAPL ' 1403 Notices of Pendency are requisite elements for foreclosing a mortgage. <i>See, Chiarelli v. Kotsifos</i>, 5 A.D.3d 345 (a notice of pendency is a prerequisite to obtaining a judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action); <i>Campbell v. Smith</i>, 309 A.D.2d 581, 582 (a notice of pendency is required in a foreclosure action under RPAPL Article 13). In contrast, an ex parte CPLR Article 65 Notice of Pendency (the "Notice") is not required but it is a significant tool in an action claiming title to, or an interest in or the use or enjoyment of, another's land. The filer does not have to make a meritorious showing or post a bond. Article 65 provides mechanisms for the defendant-owner to vacate the Notice that caused an unilaterally imposed restraint on its realty. But, recent case law establishes the near futility of such efforts if the plaintiff has satisfied the minimal statutory requisites for filing the Notice.Read More ›