There’s not much in the way of outstanding jurisprudence coming out of the Third Circuit this week, but there are two interesting cases, and one of them comes with fries.
Recently in Intellectual Property Law Category
Drug-dealing, guns, money, and vengeance have become part of the urban narrative. So have phrases like "yo, where's my money at," "let's keep it popping," and "the strong take from the weak but the smart take from everybody."
According to a recent unpublished opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, such themes are "either common in general or common with respect to hip hop culture, and do not enjoy copyright protection." That's good news for 50 Cent, who was the defendant in this copyright dispute.
Merck wants the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit split regarding pay-for-delay arrangements, reports Thomson Reuters News & Insight.
In July, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pay-for-delay arrangements are presumptively anti-competitive. It was the first appellate court to reach that conclusion.
This week, the pharmaceutical giant filed a petition for certiorari, asking the Court to reverse the decision.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark opinion on pay-for-delay deals involving pharmaceutical products, reports Businessweek.
The decision involved Merck & Co’s Schering-Plough branch, which entered into pay-for-delay agreements to delay the entry of generic versions of the K-Dur drug into the market.
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.
Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge, 09-4495, concerned an architect's suit against former clients and an architectural firm for violation of the Lanham Act and breach of contract and a claim that defendants had violated its copyright in a home design.
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.
- Full text of Sabinsa Corp. v. Creative Compounds, LLC