Westlaw Topical Highlights: Intellectual Property, June 25, 2013

June 25, 2013

 REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji

REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji

Westlaw Topical Highlights for Intellectual Property provides summaries of significant court decisions and legislative and administrative activities affecting Intellectual Property law. A Westlaw subscription is required to access the documents linked from this page.

Marks and Logos: Artificial turf manufacturer’s “Revolution” trademark did not infringe fiber manufacturer’s “Evolution” trademark.  FieldTurf USA Inc. v. TenCate Thiolon Middle East 2013 WL 1963918 (N.D.Ga.)  An artificial turf manufacturer’s “Revolution” trademark did not infringe a fiber manufacturer’s “Evolution” trademark. “Evolution” trademark had become incontestable. However, the “Evolution” product had not been advertised or promoted in the United States. The purchasers of both products were sophisticated purchasers who were not likely to be deceived. The parties dealt with consumers at different stages of the purchasing process. Evidence of actual confusion was de minimis. 2013 WL 1963918  (The full-texts of the rest of the Topical Highlights are available within Westlaw Next, subscription required)

Judgment: District court’s determinations did not bar challenges to competitor’s mark in PTO opposition and cancellation proceedings.  Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. 2013 WL 2991065 (C.A.Fed.)

Internet: Unauthorized use of trademark in film and on websites was not reverse trademark infringement in violation of Lanham Act.  Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 2013 WL 2156318 (N.D.Ind.)

Appeals: An accounting, for purposes of interlocutory appeal statute, includes a determination of whether the infringement was willful.  Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp. 2013 WL 2664281 (C.A.Fed. (Del.))

Computers and Electronics: Computer-based method for monetizing copyrighted products was not ineligible for patent protection.  Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC 2013 WL 3111303 (C.A.Fed. (Cal.))

Class Actions: Class certification was not warranted in copyright infringement action against video-sharing website operator.  Football Ass’n Premier League Ltd. v. YouTube, Inc. 2013 WL 2096411 (S.D.N.Y.)

Internet: Allegations based on internet user’s internet protocol address stated a claim against user for copyright infringement.  Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Doe 1 2013 WL 2177787 (E.D.N.Y.)