CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n

Brentwood Academy sued the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA) and its Executive Director, Ronnie Carter, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments due to TSSAA's Recruiting Rule. The court found the rule unconstitutional as applied to Brentwood Academy for its 'Spring Practice Letter' and complimentary tickets, ruling it was not narrowly tailored, violated substantive due process due to vagueness and lack of notice, and procedural due process because of the consideration of ex parte evidence during deliberations. Consequently, the court declared the August 23, 1997 penalties imposed by the TSSAA against Brentwood Academy void and enjoined them.

Education LawSports LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessFreedom of SpeechRecruiting RuleState ActorUnconstitutional As AppliedInjunctive Relief
References
35
Case No. NO. 01-05-00494-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2007

Yahya Hassan, Individually and D/B/A Safe Cab Co., A/K/A Safe Company and Kemal Mohammed, Individually and D/B/A Safe Cab Co., A/K/A Safe Cab Company v. Greater Houston Transportation Company D/B/A Yellow Cab

This is a dissenting opinion in a trade dress infringement case brought by Greater Houston Transportation Company d/b/a Yellow Cab against Yahya Hassan and Kemal Mohammed d/b/a Safe Cab Co. under the Lanham Act and Texas common law. The dissent argues that the majority incorrectly concluded that the appellant failed to preserve its challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and erroneously rejected a legally correct jury charge on 'secondary meaning.' Justice Keyes, the author of the dissent, contends that the challenged jury instruction was not erroneous and, even if it were, the error would not have caused an improper judgment due to sufficient evidence of trade dress infringement. The dissent would affirm the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion.

Trade Dress InfringementLanham ActSecondary MeaningLikelihood of ConfusionJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas LawUnfair CompetitionTaxi Services
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Lit.

This case is a putative class action brought by purchasers of Enron Corporation's publicly traded equity and debt securities, including the Regents of the University of California and the Washington State Investment Board. The plaintiffs allege widespread securities violations against Enron and numerous 'secondary actors,' such as accounting firms, law firms, and investment banks. The core accusation centers on an 'enormous Ponzi scheme' designed to artificially inflate Enron's revenues, conceal massive debts, and maintain its stock price and credit rating through fraudulent, non-arm’s-length transactions with Enron-controlled entities and improper accounting practices. The secondary actors are implicated for their alleged knowing participation in this scheme, driven by financial gain through lucrative fees and investment opportunities. The court ruled on motions to dismiss filed by these secondary actors, denying most motions but granting some in full or in part, allowing the case to proceed against many key defendants.

Securities FraudClass ActionPonzi SchemeEnron ScandalCorporate FraudAccounting FraudInvestment Banking MisconductLaw Firm LiabilityAuditor MalpracticeOff-Balance Sheet Entities
References
148
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1999

Hill v. Warner Bros.

This case involves an appeal affirming a lower court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing a personal injury complaint. The plaintiff was deemed a "special employee" of defendant By Any Means Necessary Cinema (BAMN), despite concurrent employment with IDC Services, which barred his personal injury action under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court also found that other named defendants, including Spike Lee, were co-employees, precluding an action against them under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(6). Furthermore, defendants Warner Brothers, Inc. and Forty Acres & A Mule Film Works were not involved in the film production, and Palace Fried Chicken was too distant to be a contributing factor. Finally, no evidence supported a finding of negligence against defendant John Catsimatides.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentCo-employee ImmunitySummary JudgmentPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate AffirmationFilm IndustryPayroll ServicesNegligenceNew York Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. NO. 14-09-01023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2011

Mauricio Funes and Ursula Marisol Funes v. Ernesto A. Villatoro

The Funeses appealed a trial court's judgment favoring Villatoro regarding trade name ownership, tortious interference, lost profits, and attorney's fees. Villatoro cross-appealed concerning appellate attorney's fees. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the findings that "Buenos Dias, El Salvador" and "Festival Guanaco" were Villatoro's trade names due to insufficient evidence of secondary meaning. Consequently, the court also reversed the permanent injunction against the Funeses and the award of damages for tortious interference. The issue of attorney's fees was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration, given the partial reversal of the declaratory relief. Villatoro's cross-appeal for appellate attorney's fees was overruled for lack of preservation.

Trade NamesSecondary MeaningTortious InterferenceLost ProfitsDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesInjunctive ReliefAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Commerce Drug Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Peter S. Bernard brought claims against Commerce Drug Company and Del Laboratories, Inc. for trademark violations under the Lanham Act and state law concerning the product 'Arthriticare.' Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement and judgment on the pleadings for fraudulent trademark registration, while plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The court found plaintiff's 'Arthriticare' mark to be descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, thus granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim. The claim for fraudulent trademark registration was dismissed as defendants' mark was not registered. All remaining state and common law claims were dismissed due to the absence of federal claims and diversity jurisdiction.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on PleadingsDescriptive TrademarkSecondary MeaningFraudulent RegistrationPendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionUnregistered Mark
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GMT Productions, L.P. v. Cablevision of New York City, Inc.

The plaintiff, GMT Productions, L.P. ("GMT"), brought an action against the defendant, Cablevision of New York City, Inc. ("Cablevision"), seeking protection for an unregistered mark, "The Arabic Channel." GMT claimed the mark had acquired secondary meaning, despite a disclaimer required by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Cablevision moved for summary judgment, arguing the mark was generic and unprotectable, and that neither party had used it. The Court, assuming plaintiff's use of the mark, focused on its protectability. It determined that "The Arabic Channel" is a generic term, describing a general category of services (channels broadcasting in Arabic), and thus is not eligible for trademark protection under any circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted defendant's summary judgment motion regarding the Lanham Act claim (Count I) and dismissed the remaining state law claims (Counts II and III) for lack of jurisdiction.

Trademark LawGeneric TermsDescriptive TermsSecondary MeaningLanham ActSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionUnfair CompetitionDilutionService Mark
References
36
Case No. 02 Civ. 8428(DC)
Regular Panel Decision

Professional Sound Services, Inc. v. Guzzi

Plaintiff Professional Sound Services, Inc. (PSS) sued Gotham Sound and Communications, Inc., Roland J. Guzzi, and Peter Schneider, alleging product disparagement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, along with several state law claims. PSS contended that Guzzi made disparaging statements about PSS to its customers and that Gotham's use of the letter "S" in its inventory codes constituted trademark infringement of PSS's purported "S" mark. The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Lanham Act claims. The court found that PSS failed to demonstrate widespread dissemination for its disparagement claim and that its "S" mark lacked inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning necessary for trademark protection. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Lanham ActProduct DisparagementFalse Designation of OriginTrademark InfringementSummary JudgmentCommercial SpeechDistinctivenessSecondary MeaningLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid Factors
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Idea Nuova, Inc.

Plaintiff GMA Accessories, Inc. sued defendant Idea Nuova, Inc. for copyright infringement. Idea Nuova filed several counterclaims, including trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false description, false representation under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, trademark dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, cancellation of trademark registration under Section 37, fraudulent trademark registration application under Sections 35(a) and 38, declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and common law unfair competition. GMA moved to dismiss these amended counterclaims. The court denied GMA's motion to dismiss the trademark infringement and dilution claims, as Idea Nuova sufficiently alleged secondary meaning and the elements of the dilution claim. However, the court granted dismissal for the cancellation of GMA's pending 'Room in a Box' trademark application, the Section 38 fraudulent registration claim due to pleading deficiencies, and the declaratory relief claim for lack of an actual controversy. The court retained jurisdiction over the cancellation claim for GMA's registered 'Room on the Run' trademark and the common law unfair competition claim.

Trademark InfringementCopyright InfringementLanham ActTrademark DilutionDeclaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissCounterclaimsFraudulent RegistrationUnfair CompetitionSecondary Meaning
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 639 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational