Booze. Exotic locations. Communism. This case has it all.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that consumers are smart enough to figure out that Havana Club Rum is made in Puerto Rico, not Havana.
In a geographic battle for the ages, French liquor producer Pernod Ricard sued Bacardi, the Bermuda-based rum giant, alleging that Bacardi's Havana Club rum label was a false advertisement and misleading.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals had an interesting week. Or rather, they had a very interesting copyright lawsuit.
See if you can wrap your legal minds around the following scenario:
A photographer does a photo shoot of two local radio hosts, Craig Carton and Ray Rossi. In this photo, the radio hosts are wearing nothing.
That's right -- buck naked, in the buff, in their birthday suits -- call it what you will, but it's really nothing more than a bit of spice to the case, since the nudity wasn't the issue.
The issue was homosexuality. Or at least allegations of it and a subsequent defamation claim.
Denial of a motion to dismiss or stay the litigation, for misappropriation of trade secrets of a technology for manufacturing a chemical used in manufacturing nylon, in favor of arbitration
Invista S.A.R.L. v. Rhodia, SA, 09-2514, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's motion to either dismiss or stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, 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.
Dismissal of Plaintiff's Suit for Forum Non Conveniens Affirmed
Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA, 09-3790, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal of the suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, in a dispute involving the acquisition of intellectual property that includes in vitro phenotyping technology that assists in the development and administration of drugs used to treat HIV and Hepatitis B by testing the effectiveness of those drugs on specific patients' viruses.
Sabinsa Corp. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, 08-3255, concerned a challenge to the district court's judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between plaintiff's mark, ForsLean, and defendant's mark, Forsthin, both of which refer to an extract used in weight control products, in plaintiff's suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
In reversing the judgment, the court held that the district court erred in its finding on the Lapp factors and its ultimate finding on likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, because the undisputed facts weigh heavily in favor of plaintiff so that any reasonable fact finder would find that plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of confusion, the case is remanded for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Related Resource:
In a contract case arising from parties' efforts to resolve a dispute over the use of similar trademarks in their respective clothing lines, a magistrate judge's rulings are affirmed in part where both parties intended an informal document to be a binding contract and no reasonable jury could decide otherwise, and the terms of such document were sufficiently definite to warrant enforcement. However, the case is remanded as the terms agreed to by the parties with respect to certain clauses were not sufficiently unambiguous to permit judicial interpretation of the contract.
Read Am. Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott Ltd., No. 08-4807
Appellate Information
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (No. 06-cv-00607)
District Judge: Honorable A,y Reynolds Hay
Opinion Filed September 11, 2009
Judges
Before: Fuentes, Jordan, and Nygaard, Circuit Judges
Opinion by: Fuentes, Circuit Judge
Counsel
Counsel for Appellant: Emily J. Barnhart, Dennis P. McCooe, Timothy D. Pescsenye, Laurence S. Shtasel, James T. Smith, Marc E. Weitzman, Susan B. Flohr, Charles R. Wolfe, Robert L. Byer, Susan G. Schwochau,
Counsel for Appellee: Clay P. Hughes, Cynthia E. Kernick, Walter T. McGough, Jr., Kirsten R. Rydstrom, Richard T. Ting, Colin E. Wrabley, Theodore R. Remaklus.
In a licensing agreement dispute involving restriction of Styrofoam-type sales to certain Asian countries, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-licensee is affirmed where the "fully paid-up" license clearly expired along with defendant's intellectual property rights in the process, and as such, because defendant does not have continuing intellectual property rights in the process, the License Agreement has no continuing force.
Read Nova Chem., Inc. v. Sekisui Plastics Co. LTD., No. 08-4090
Appellate Information
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 06-cv-00478)
District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone
Argued May 20, 2009
Opinion Filed August 28, 2009
Judges
Before: Fuentes, Jordan and Nygaard, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Fuentes
Counsel
Counsel for Appellant: Walter H. Flamm, Jr., Michael J. McCaney, Jr.
Counsel for Appellee: John M. McIntyre, David J.Bird
In an action related to a trademark dispute involving the singing group "The Drifters," district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the court did not err in issuing contempt findings against the plaintiffs as they reassembled plaintiff's business under different names in order to evade the injunction issued by the district court judge; 2) the court erred in holding co-plaintiff Revels in contempt, as defendant never actually moved for him to be held in contempt, and he thus never obtained notice and a separate hearing; and 3) the court properly awarded defendant attorney's fees, but abused its discretion in refusing to impose any remedy other than attorney's fees, as plaintiff continued to evade the injunction and infringe the trademark. The matter is remanded for an order of accounting of plaintiff's profits.
Read Marshak v. Treadwell, No. 08-1771
Appellate Information
Appeal from the Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Argued: March 10, 2009
Filed: July 2, 2009
Judges
Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Counsel
For Appellant: John A. DeMaro, Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.
For Appellee: Cindy D. Salvo, The Salvo Law Firm, P.C.
See All FindLaw Blogs >>
Go To U.S. Third Circuit Main Page >>
