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

Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Golf 600 Inc.

Plaintiff Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation, a manufacturer of karaoke tracks under the "Sound Choice" brand, filed a trademark infringement action against Clontarfscouse LLC, which operates "The River Roadhouse" bar. Clontarfscouse hired Nightstar DJ and Karaoke, which used Slep-Tone's trademarked products without a license. Slep-Tone warned Clontarfscouse about the infringement, but the defendant continued to host Nightstar's events. The court applied the Inwood test for contributory trademark infringement to Clontarfscouse as a service provider with sufficient control over the infringing conduct and knowledge of the specific infringement. Finding that Nightstar infringed Slep-Tone's trademarks and that Clontarfscouse was contributorily liable, the court granted Slep-Tone's motion for summary judgment on liability for federal trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionSummary JudgmentContributory LiabilityKaraoke TracksSound ChoiceService Provider LiabilityWillful BlindnessIntellectual PropertyFederal Law
References
28
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Portrait Corp. of America, Inc.

Portrait Corporation of America, Inc. (PCA), and its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During these proceedings, PCA sold substantially all its assets, including the "PICTUREME!" trademark, to CPI Corp. ("CPI") free and clear of interests under Bankruptcy Code section 363(f). Subsequently, Picture Me Press, LLC ("PMP") filed a trademark infringement action against CPI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging infringement of its "PICTURE ME" trademark. CPI then moved in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the Sale Order and enjoin PMP's Ohio action, arguing that PMP's interest was extinguished by the free and clear sale. PMP contended its claims were not "interests" under 363(f) or that it lacked proper notice. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Robert D. Drain, determined that a trademark infringement claim could be an "interest" under 363(f) but decided to permissively abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). The court cited significant factual overlap between the motion to enforce the sale order and the pending Ohio action, involving issues of trademark ownership, effective notice to PMP, and post-sale use of the mark. The court also noted that the dispute was between non-debtors and had no financial impact on the debtors' estates, suggesting a risk of forum shopping, thus favoring abstention.

Bankruptcy LawSection 363(f)Trademark InfringementAbstentionSale Order EnforcementFederal JurisdictionDue ProcessChapter 11Creditors' RightsInter-court Conflict
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rovio Entertainment, Ltd. v. Allstar Vending, Inc.

Rovio Entertainment, Ltd. filed a counterfeiting and trademark infringement action against several defendants for unauthorized use of its Angry Birds copyrights and trademarks. Some defendants settled, and Han When Kuo was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court found it had personal jurisdiction over Toy Amazon Corporation and Yun Long Kuo, who failed to answer or defend, leading to a motion for default judgment. The Court determined that Rovio successfully stated claims for copyright and trademark infringement. Consequently, a default judgment was entered, awarding Rovio $1,200,000.00 in copyright damages and $1,500,000.00 in trademark and counterfeiting damages, totaling $2,700,000.00 plus post-judgment interest, and a permanent injunction was issued against Toy Amazon and Yun Long Kuo to prevent future infringements.

Copyright InfringementTrademark InfringementCounterfeitingDefault JudgmentPermanent InjunctionPersonal JurisdictionLanham ActCopyright ActStatutory DamagesWillful Infringement
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2007

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.

Louis Vuitton Malletier initiated an action against Dooney & Bourke, Inc., alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition under state and federal laws. The Court addressed two key legal questions: the necessity of proving willful deceit for profit recovery in federal trademark infringement claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the requirement of showing actual damages for monetary relief in federal dilution claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The District Court affirmed both requirements, holding that a finding of the defendant's willful deceptiveness is a prerequisite for awarding profits in trademark infringement suits, thereby upholding the George Basch Co. v. Blue Coral, Inc. precedent. Additionally, the court ruled that the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA) is not retroactively applicable to monetary relief for dilution claims, necessitating proof of actual dilution for pre-TDRA conduct. Consequently, Louis Vuitton must establish willful deceit to recover Dooney & Bourke's profits and actual dilution to be entitled to monetary relief on its federal dilution claim.

Trademark InfringementTrademark DilutionUnfair CompetitionLanham ActWillful DeceptionProfit AwardsMonetary ReliefRetroactivityTrademark Dilution Revision ActFederal Law
References
27
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. 06-CV-2225(JFB)(AKT)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Fragrancenet. Com, Inc. v. Fragrancex. Com, Inc.

Plaintiff FragranceNet.com, Inc. sued defendant FragranceX.com, Inc. alleging copyright and trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and other state law violations. FragranceNet claimed FragranceX copied over 900 copyrighted product images and misused its trademarks in metatags and Google's AdWords program to divert consumers. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that FragranceNet's images lacked copyrightable originality and that FragranceNet did not have enforceable trademark rights. The Court denied the motion, ruling that FragranceNet's claims were plausible, citing the presumption of originality from copyright registration and the validity of trademark assignments allowing for past infringement claims. The Court also determined that the defendant's champerty defense presented factual issues inappropriate for a motion to dismiss.

Copyright InfringementTrademark InfringementTrademark DilutionUnfair CompetitionMisappropriationUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissOriginality of CopyrightDerivative WorksLanham Act
References
73
Case No. 06-CV-2225(JFB)(AKT)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2010

Fragrancenet.com, Inc. v. Fragrancex.com, Inc.

Plaintiff FragranceNet.com, Inc. sued defendant FragranceX.com, Inc. alleging extensive copyright and trademark infringement, along with related state law violations. FragranceNet claimed FragranceX copied over 900 copyrighted product images from its website and improperly used FragranceNet's "FRAGRANCENET" and "FRAGRANCENET.COM" trademarks in website metatags and Google AdWords, diverting consumer traffic. FragranceX moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the images lacked copyright originality and that FragranceNet did not possess enforceable trademark rights due to issues of ownership transfer and champerty. The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that FragranceNet had stated plausible claims for both copyright and trademark infringement. The decision emphasized that determinations regarding the originality of copyrighted images and the validity of trademark assignments were factual issues unsuitable for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.

Copyright InfringementTrademark InfringementTrademark DilutionUnfair CompetitionMisappropriationOnline RetailE-commerceDigital ImagesMetatagsGoogle AdWords
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Car-Freshner Corp. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

Plaintiffs Car-Freshner Corporation and Julius Samann LTD sued Defendants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and Midwestern Home Products, Inc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition over their sale of tree-shaped air fresheners. Plaintiffs own registered trademarks for their air fresheners. Applying the Polaroid factors, the Court found a likelihood of consumer confusion due to strong marks, striking product similarity, competitive proximity, and low buyer sophistication. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement. Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of punitive damages claims and a determination that the case was not exceptional under the Lanham Act, was denied, as factual disputes regarding intent and willfulness remained for trial.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionSummary JudgmentLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid FactorsLanham ActPunitive DamagesPost-Sale ConfusionTrade DressConsumer Protection
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benihana of Tokyo, LLC v. Benihana Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Benihana of Tokyo, LLC (plaintiff) and Benihana, Inc. (defendant Benihana America), regarding a license agreement for a Benihana restaurant in Hawaii and alleged trademark infringements. Benihana of Tokyo sought a declaratory judgment that statements on its website did not violate Benihana America's Lanham Act rights and moved to compel arbitration of Benihana America's counterclaims. Benihana America filed counterclaims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, trademark dilution, and breach of contract. The Court determined that the arbitration clause in the License Agreement was mandatory once invoked. It granted Benihana of Tokyo's motion to compel arbitration for some counterclaims related to the Hawaii restaurant, but denied it for others primarily related to website statements unrelated to the Hawaii License Agreement. The Court also denied Benihana of Tokyo's motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint without prejudice.

Arbitration AgreementTrademark InfringementLanham ActLicense AgreementDeclaratory JudgmentCounterclaimsWebsite MisrepresentationContract DisputeFederal Arbitration ActHawaii Restaurant
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 273 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