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
Enewsletter Sign-up
    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
Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.
In action for copyright infringement of software, copyright misuse defense fails because software licensing agreement allowed licensee to develop competing software. 		Intellectual Property Sep. 28, 2011
GoPets Ltd. v. Hise
Re-registration of domain name does not violate Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act's prohibition on registration of names that are confusingly similar to service marks. 		Intellectual Property Sep. 22, 2011
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions Inc.
In action for copyright infringement, court errs in providing jury instruction to specify amount of statutory damages as to each defendant, rather than number of protected works. 		Intellectual Property Sep. 13, 2011
Flexible Lifeline Systems Inc. v. Precision Lift Inc.
In copyright infringement action, irreparable harm is not presumed upon showing of likelihood of success on merits for purposes of injunction. 		Intellectual Property Aug. 23, 2011
Fleischer Studios Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A. Inc.
Although fractured ownership may make it impossible to prove secondary meaning in trademark infringement claim, such ownership is not conclusive evidence of lack of secondary meaning. 		Intellectual Property Aug. 22, 2011
Perfect 10 Inc. v. Google Inc.
In copyright infringement claim, showing of reasonable likelihood of success does not raise presumption of irreparable harm for purposes of preliminary injunctive relief. 		Intellectual Property Aug. 4, 2011
TrafficSchool.com Inc. v. Edriver Inc.
Injunction ordering website to provide splash screen disclaimer to every site visitor following Lanham Act violation constitutes burden on protected content. 		Intellectual Property Jul. 29, 2011
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership
Proving patent invalidity calls for heightened standard, regardless of whether evidence is different from that before jury and before patent office. 		Intellectual Property Jun. 10, 2011
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems Inc.
Bayh-Dole Act does not automatically void inventor’s rights in federally funded inventions or vest rights in university to take title to such inventions. 		Intellectual Property Jun. 7, 2011
Global-Tech Appliances Inc. v. SEB S.A.
To be liable of actively inducing patent infringement, defendant must have knowledge that induced acts constitute infringement. 		Intellectual Property Jun. 1, 2011
Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television Inc.
Copyright law does not preempt implied-in-fact contract claim where plaintiff alleged bilateral expectation that he would be compensated for use of idea. 		Intellectual Property May 5, 2011
Network Automation Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts Inc.
Court errs in basing infringement analysis on ‘Internet trinity’ factors, failing to apply infringement factors flexibly based on specific case. 		Intellectual Property Mar. 9, 2011
Fleischer Studios Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A. Inc.
Plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement fails when transfer specifically carved out copyright to character, breaking chain of title. 		Intellectual Property Feb. 24, 2011
Lahoti v. Vericheck Inc.
Court properly determines trademark is suggestive on remand, after finding mark did not immediately convey information about nature of services offered by trademark holder. 		Intellectual Property Feb. 17, 2011
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.
Court errs in using ‘identical or nearly identical’ standard to determine dilution claim following enactment of Trademark Dilution Revision Act. 		Intellectual Property Feb. 9, 2011
United Fabrics International Inc. v. C&J Wear Inc.
Validity of copyright is presumed after copyright registration and court errs in dismissing case for lack of standing absent some evidence rebutting presumption. 		Intellectual Property Jan. 27, 2011
UMG Recordings Inc. v. Augusto
Unsolicited distribution of copyrighted CDs without restrictions on disposal or use does not create licensing agreement, and is subject to first sale doctrine. 		Intellectual Property Jan. 4, 2011
FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network
Nonprofit corporation engages in 'naked licensing' by failing to exercise control over licensee and thus, abandons its trademarks. 		Intellectual Property Nov. 25, 2010
DSPT International Inc. v. Nahum
Defendant may be liable for cybersquatting where he uses trademarked domain name in bad faith for leverage against plaintiff. 		Intellectual Property Oct. 27, 2010
MGA Entertainment Inc. v. Mattel Inc.
Constructive trust transferring Bratz trademark portfolio to Mattel Inc. is improper where defendant's legitimate efforts increased value of Bratz brand. 		Intellectual Property Oct. 21, 2010
Vernor v. Autodesk Inc.
Licensee cannot convey ownership of software to buyer, and buyer cannot in turn sell software, claiming protection under ‘first sale doctrine.’ 		Intellectual Property Sep. 13, 2010
Seller Agency Council Inc. v. Kennedy Center for Real Estate Education Inc.
Finding of unclean hands for conduct taken before alleged trademark infringement action does not bar defendant from asserting equitable defense. 		Intellectual Property Sep. 7, 2010
F.B.T. Productions LLC v. Aftermath Records
Contracts unambiguously state that company is entitled to 50 percent of royalties on sales of Eminem's recordings in form of downloads and mastertones. 		Intellectual Property Sep. 7, 2010
Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp.
Unjust enrichment is not provable where jury finds defendant has not made profit from trade secret misappropriation. 		Intellectual Property Aug. 31, 2010
Fortune Dynamic Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management Inc.
Summary judgment is improper in trademark infringement case where use of descriptive term created issue of material fact as to fair use. 		Intellectual Property Aug. 20, 2010
Jules Jordan Video Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc.
Films are not ‘works for hire’ where employee preparing work is sole officer and shareholder of employer company and responsible for all decisions. 		Intellectual Property Aug. 17, 2010
Advertise.com Inc. v. AOL Advertising Inc.
Preliminary injunction is inappropriate where term ADVERTISING.COM is generic because 'dot-com' can refer generally to Internet-based businesses. 		Intellectual Property Aug. 4, 2010
MGA Entertainment Inc. v. Mattel Inc.
Constructive trust transferring Bratz trademark portfolio to Mattel Inc. is improper where defendant's legitimate efforts increased value of Bratz brand. 		Intellectual Property Jul. 23, 2010
Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. v. Tabari
Domain names may contain trademark where such use does not create confusion that website is sponsored or endorsed by trademark holder. 		Intellectual Property Jul. 9, 2010
Mindys Cosmetics Inc. v. Dakar
Court denies attorney's anti-SLAPP motion although lawsuit arose from protected act of filing trademark application with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 		Intellectual Property Jul. 7, 2010
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.