For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
BillFloat, Inc. v. Collins Cash Inc.
Because survey design issues did not render likelihood-of-confusion survey unreliable, district court's admission of survey was not abuse of discretion. 		Evidence, Intellectual Property 9th Jul. 2, 2024
BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Inc.
District courts have jurisdiction to consider and cancel pending trademark applications in an action involving a registered mark. 		Intellectual Property 9th Apr. 2, 2024
Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells
A plaintiff in a trade secrets case may recover, as an element of damages, the expert fees it incurs to stop misappropriation, but not the expert fees to investigate suspected misappropriation. 		Intellectual Property 4DCA/3 Mar. 12, 2024
Punchbowl Inc v. AJ Press LLC
Defendant's use of a trademark was not outside the Lanham Act's scope under the "Rogers test" because it used the mark to identify and distinguish its products. 		Intellectual Property 9th Jan. 16, 2024
Y.Y.G.M. SA v. Redbubble Inc.
Contributory trademark infringement liability requires the defendant to have knowledge of specific infringers or instances of infringement, as opposed to merely a general awareness that infringement is likely occurring. 		Intellectual Property 9th Jul. 25, 2023
Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int'l, Inc.
Sections 1114(1)(a) and 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act do not apply extraterritorially and extend only to claims where the infringing use in commerce is domestic. 		Intellectual Property USSC Jun. 30, 2023
Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
While dog toy company used Jack Daniel's trademarked bottle design and logo in a humorous way, their chew toy was not an "expressive work" that avoided analysis of consumer confusion. 		Intellectual Property USSC Jun. 9, 2023
Jason Scott Collection Inc. v. Trendily Furniture LLC
High-end furniture designer's furniture collection trade dress had acquired secondary meaning where defendant manufacturers had intentionally copied the collection's distinctive designs. 		Intellectual Property 9th May 31, 2023
Amended Opinion: San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
Declaration of trademark non-infringement divested the district court of jurisdiction to rule on the validity of common-law trademark. 		Intellectual Property 9th Apr. 24, 2023
San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
Declaration of trademark non-infringement divested the district court of jurisdiction to rule on the validity of common-law trademark. 		Intellectual Property 9th Feb. 13, 2023
Punchbowl Inc. v. AJ Press LLC
Political news publication's use of the name "Punchbowl News" was a protected expressive work that did not infringe on a different "Punchbowl" trademark. 		Intellectual Property 9th Nov. 15, 2022
San Antonio Winery Inc. v. Jiaxing Micarose Trade Co., Ltd.
Service procedures of Section 1051(e) of the Lanham Act, applicable to foreign trademark registration applicants, apply not only in administrative proceedings but also in trademark-related court proceedings. 		Intellectual Property 9th Nov. 15, 2022
P and P Imports v. Johnson Enterprises
In the context of trade dress, showing secondary meaning only requires that the public associates the features as coming from a single source or company, even if they cannot identify the source. 		Intellectual Property 9th Aug. 25, 2022
AK Futures v. Boyd Street Distro
Plaintiff could own a valid trademark because the plain and unambiguous text of the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act compelled the conclusion that plaintiff's delta-8 THC products were lawful. 		Intellectual Property 9th May 20, 2022
Lodestar Anstalt v. Bacardi & Co.
Despite district court's error that "strength-of the-mark" factor weighed against confusion, no reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion between two rum distillery's trademarks. 		Intellectual Property 9th Apr. 22, 2022
Bluetooth SIG v. FCA USA
The defense of first sale doctrine only applies if consumers have been adequately made aware of the trademarked goods' origination. 		Intellectual Property 9th Apr. 7, 2022
Social Technologies v. Apple
Because plaintiff did not engage in bona fide use of mark in commerce, its trademark registration was invalid. 		Intellectual Property 9th Jul. 14, 2021
Amended Opinion: Ironhawk Technologies v. Dropbox
There was genuine dispute of material fact as to likelihood of consumer confusion under reverse confusion theory of infringement. 		Intellectual Property 9th Jul. 8, 2021
Ironhawk Technologies v. Dropbox
There was genuine dispute of material fact as to likelihood of consumer confusion under reverse confusion theory of infringement. 		Intellectual Property 9th Apr. 21, 2021
Arcona Inc. v. Farmacy Beauty
A trademark counterfeit claim requires a showing of likelihood of confusion under 15 U.S.C. Section 1114. 		Intellectual Property 9th Oct. 2, 2020
Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V.
Whether any term styled 'generic.com' term is generic, depends on whether consumers perceive that term as the name of a class. 		Intellectual Property USSC Jul. 1, 2020
Blumenthal Distributing Inc. v. Herman Miller Inc.
Plaintiff did not supply legally sufficient evidence of fame of its claimed trade dresses; thus, judgment against defendant for trade dress dilution was reversed. 		Intellectual Property 9th Jun. 26, 2020
Doc's Dream v. Dolores Press
Declaratory relief action alleging abandonment of copyright invokes sufficient 'construction' of Copyright Act to allow for discretionary award of attorney's fees. 		Intellectual Property 9th May 14, 2020
Georgia v. Public Resource.Org, Inc.
Annotations in Georgia's Official Code were not copyrightable because Code Revision Commission qualified as legislator and created them in discharge of its duties. 		Intellectual Property USSC Apr. 28, 2020
Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff payment of reasonable royalty under California Uniform Trade Secret Act. 		Intellectual Property 6DCA Apr. 27, 2020
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.
Plaintiff in trademark infringement suit is not required to show that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's trademark as precondition to profits award. 		Intellectual Property USSC Apr. 24, 2020
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
Judicial review of Patent and Trademark Office's application of time prescription was precluded because determination whether to institute inter partes review is nonappealable. 		Intellectual Property USSC Apr. 21, 2020
VIP Products v. Jack Daniel's Properties
District court erred in finding trademark infringement without first requiring appellee to satisfy one of two 'Rogers v. Grimaldi' prongs because artistic expression was at issue. 		Intellectual Property 9th Apr. 1, 2020
Helsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
A commercial sale to a third party requiring them to keep an invention confidential may place an invention "on sale" under 35 U. S. C. Section 102(a), thus barring it from being patented. 		Intellectual Property USSC Jan. 23, 2019
Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger
Because Defendants' use of Plaintiff's marks constituted nominative fair use, dismissal was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 		Intellectual Property 9th Jan. 16, 2019
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.