About IntellectuLaw
Intellectulaw™
Law Offices of P.B. Tufariello, P.C.
25 Little Harbor Rd.
Mt. Sinai, NY 11766
Phone: (631) 476-8734
Fax: (631) 476-8737
Research Your Trademark
Intellectual Property
Case Summaries
Intellectual Property
[10/27] DSPT Int'l., Inc. v. Nahum
In an action for "cybersquatting" and trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) although there was no evidence of anything wrong with defendant's registration of the domain name at issue to himself, the evidence supported a verdict that defendant subsequently, years later, used the domain name to get leverage for his claim for commissions; 2) the designs used by defendant were sufficiently similar to those used by plaintiff; and 3) given the impossibility of precise measurements, the jury had sufficient tools for estimating defendant's damages, including financial statements bracketing the period of the loss and testimony that DSPT spent $31,572.72 recreating its website.
[10/25] Invista S.A.R.L. v. Rhodia, SA
In plaintiff's suit for interference with contract, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets, in connection with a technology for manufacturing a critical intermediate chemical used in manufacturing nylon, district court's denial of defendant's motion to either dismiss or stay the litigation in favor of arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the Tribunal's holding that it does not have jurisdiction over defendant moots this appeal, and given the Tribunal's ruling, it is clear that the district court could not have enforced the arbitration clause as defendant had urged; and 2) because defendant's appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss under section 3 of the FAA is moot and must be dismissed, its appeal from the district court's denial of its discretionary motion to stay must also be dismissed for lack of pendent appellate jurisdiction.
[10/21] Antounian v. Malletier
In plaintiffs' suit for malicious prosecution against defendant-manufacturers of luxury goods, Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior, the manufacturers' law firm, and individual lawyers, arising from an underlying suit against plaintiffs for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, trial court's grant of defendants' anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed as plaintiffs' claims were properly subject to a special motion to strike and plaintiffs have not shown a probability of prevailing on the merits of their malicious prosecution claim.
[10/13] Solvay SA v. Honeywell Int'l Inc.
In a suit for infringement of a patent, directed to methods for making 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (non-ozone depleting hydrofluorocarbon), district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court erred in ruling claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 11 of the '817 patent invalid as defendant was not a prior inventor for purposes of section 102(g)(2); but 2) the district court did not err in ruling that claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 11 of the '817 patent were infringed; and 3) district court did not err in ruling that claims 12-18, 21 and 22 were not infringed.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
Please visit our Litigation website at www.intellectulawlitigation.com