Search Results for: ptab_cases

Insights View All

• 

  23 October, 2025

  Top Ten Influential Intellectual Property Cases In Apparel & Fashion Law

  The apparel and fashion industry is rife with intellectual property issues and disputes.  Particularly in the past twenty years, courts have grappled with the competing interests and arguments of apparel designers, online re-sellers, and others seeking to use apparel companies’ trademarks and designs in their products or creative endeavors.  This article summarizes some of the most notable U.S. intellectual property cases in the industry. Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc. (2012)Color Trademarks and Trade Dress Since 1992, Christian Louboutin (Louboutin), the designer and retailer of high-fashion women’s footwear and accessories has covered the sole of its women’s footwear with a high-gloss red lacquer. After years of hefty investment into building a reputation and goodwill for the red sole, Louboutin successfully registered the red sole as a trademark (trade dress) with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2008. Credit:  Arroser (Wikipedia) In 2011, Yves Saint Laurent (YSL), the French luxury fashion house, launched a campaign for its monochrome shoes. The monochrome shoes included purple, yellow, green, and red shoes.  The red shoe was all red, including a red insole, heel, upper, and outsole. Louboutin filed suit against YSL alleging trademark infringement under the Lanham Act…

• 

  18 January, 2019

  What to Expect When PG&E Files Bankruptcy

  This article was updated February 2, 2019. PG&E commenced its chapter 11 bankruptcy case on January 29, 2019 to deal with the litigation and claims resulting from the recent wildfires, and perhaps other business disputes. PG&E will eventually propose a plan of reorganization. That plan could include a myriad of options. It could spin off different units, liquidate some of its assets as it did in its previous bankruptcy, and could seek to raise its rates after obtaining approval from the California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”). The plan will propose a distribution to creditors, and creditors will have an opportunity to vote for or against the plan. At the end of the day, the PG&E plan will have to be approved by both the bankruptcy court and the CPUC. However, there can be a long road between the date that the case is filed, and the confirmation of the plan of reorganization. Creditors who provide services to PG&E are wondering what they can do to protect themselves?  Will they be paid for services that they provided before the commencement of the case or during the case, and will their services be paid after the filing? Cities and others who buy…

• 

  28 April, 2020

  All Good Things Must Come to an End

  All Good Things Must Come to an End On May 1, 2017, the District of Arizona began participating in a three-year pilot project, known as the “Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project” or “MIDP.” The goal of the MIDP is to collect data and study whether requiring parties in civil cases to respond to a series of standard discovery requests before undertaking other discovery would reduce the cost and delay of civil litigation. This pilot project was originally proposed by the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The project was implemented in the District of Arizona and the Northern District of Illinois. With certain limited exceptions, all civil cases filed in the District of Arizona on or after May 1, 2017 have been subject to the MIDP, which established a number of variations to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure otherwise applicable to discovery. Perhaps most notably, the MIDP required parties to respond to a list of Court-issued discovery requests without awaiting discovery from opposing parties. These discovery requests, among other things, obligated parties to: identify all persons likely to have discoverable information; identify, produce, or make available…

• 

  27 May, 2021

  Troll Control ? Reactions to Copyright Trolls | Part Two

  Troll Control ? Reactions to Copyright Trolls | Part Two When faced with a copyright troll, courts recognize “the challenge in administering intellectual property law to discourage so-called intellectual property ‘trolls’ while protecting genuine creativity.” Design Basics LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc., 858 F.3d at 1096. Although courts do not have unlimited discretion to dismiss a troll’s case, a court may employ some general rules in copyright law to thwart the troll. In PART ONE we discussed summary judgement. Here we discuss additional litigation tools to control trolls Discretion to Dismiss the Case. Video and music streaming cases often involve BitTorrent and other peer to peer networks, which can be used to freely share movies, music and TV shows. Glacier Films (USA) Inc. v. Turchin, 896 F.3d 1033, 1035-36 (9th Cir 2018). In those cases, the copyright owner has to identify the unauthorized downloader. That is done by serving a subpoena on the Internet Service Provider (ISP) to identify the registered user of the IP address. When a number of file sharing users have access to the same IP address, Defendant’s “status as the registered subscriber of an infringing IP address, standing alone, does not create a reasonable inference that…

• 

  8 May, 2020

  Eight Most Common Bankruptcy Questions

  Bankruptcy can seem daunting and overwhelming. Often, our clients come to us with many of the same questions. Our team of experienced insolvency attorneys have assisted numerous companies, both large and small, as debtors or creditors. Once you have basic understanding of bankruptcy and its alternatives, it is important to discuss the unique factors of your case. Planning ahead and understanding all of your options is critical to your long-term success and may provide more opportunities than you previously considered. Here are answers to eight commonly asked questions. Does bankruptcy provide immediate financial relief? Yes, bankruptcy provides a debtor with breathing room. When a bankruptcy case is commenced, an Automatic Stay goes into effect immediately. All pending lawsuits, foreclosures and other actions against the debtor are immediately stayed, which means that creditors are not allowed to send a demand letter or take any action to collect against the debtor. (There are some limited exceptions.) The Automatic Stay does not apply to actions against guarantors or other parties to litigation. Creditors can ask the bankruptcy court for permission to proceed, which may be granted if certain criteria are met. Creditors that violate the Automatic Stay may be sanctioned. Creditors’ positions are…

• 

  Eight Most Common Bankruptcy Questions

  Bankruptcy can seem daunting and overwhelming. Often, our clients come to us with many of the same questions. Our team of experienced insolvency attorneys have assisted numerous companies, both large and small, as debtors or creditors. Once you have basic understanding of bankruptcy and its alternatives, it is important to discuss the unique factors of your case. Planning ahead and understanding all of your options is critical to your long-term success and may provide more opportunities than you previously considered. Here are answers to eight commonly asked questions. Does bankruptcy provide immediate financial relief? Yes, bankruptcy provides a debtor with breathing room. When a bankruptcy case is commenced, an Automatic Stay goes into effect immediately. All pending lawsuits, foreclosures and other actions against the debtor are immediately stayed, which means that creditors are not allowed to send a demand letter or take any action to collect against the debtor. (There are some limited exceptions.) The Automatic Stay does not apply to actions against guarantors or other parties to litigation. Creditors can ask the bankruptcy court for permission to proceed, which may be granted if certain criteria are met. Creditors that violate the Automatic Stay may be sanctioned. Creditors’ positions are…

• 

  26 March, 2015

  A Beacon for Homeowners and HOAs. Not So Much for Design Professionals

  Earlier we wrote about a case that made architects none too happy – Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, Case No. A134542 (December 13, 2012) – in which the California Court of Appeals for the First District held that architects could be sued by a homeowner’s associations (“HOA”) and, by implication, individual homeowners as well, even though the architect did not perform its design services under contract with either the homeowners or the HOA. At its crux, the case was about the tension between two competing policies – placing limits on the liability of those involved in but too far removed from the ultimate user of a product (in this case, residential projects), on one hand, and holding those involved in such projects liable to those ultimate users (in this case, homeowners), on the other. This past year, on review by the California Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners in the design of residential buildings if they are the “principal architect” on the project even if the design services they performed were not pursuant to a direct contract with homeowners or HOA and even though they did not actually build the project or exercise…

  Spencer A.W. Stromberg Director

• 

  28 May, 2019

  Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.

  Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 2019 WL 1945001 (9th Cir. May 2, 2019), represents the latest skirmish in the ongoing battle about how to classify workers in the franchising context. In Vazquez, the Plaintiffs are individual janitorial employees who claimed that Jan-Pro, a major international franchisor of janitorial cleaning businesses, had developed a sophisticated “three-tier” franchising model to avoid paying them minimum wages and overtime pay by misclassifying them as independent  contractors. Jan-Pro contracts with intermediary entities known as master franchisees or master franchise owners to whom it sells exclusive rights to the use of the “Jan-Pro” logo and marks. The master franchise owners, in turn, sell business plans and individual franchises to unit franchisees, like the Vazquez Plaintiffs. Thus, the unit franchisees only have a contract with the master franchise owner, not Jan-Pro. However, Jan-Pro retains authority to enforce any agreement between the master franchisee and its respective unit franchisees. The master franchisees agree to provide the unit franchisees with an initial book of business, start-up equipment and supplies, and certain training, among other things. Like many other franchisors, Jan-Pro requires that master franchisees have certain terms in their agreements with unit owners,…

• 

  25 March, 2025

  In re Village Oaks Senior Care LLC

  Writing for the California Lawyers Association, Fennemore Bankruptcy Attorney Gary Rudolph analyzes In re Village Oaks Senior Care LLC, 664 B.R. 170 (Bankr. ED CA 2024), a significant decision for creditors and bankruptcy practitioners considering Subchapter V bankruptcy , underscoring the importance of accurately reporting debts and vigilantly reviewing debtors filings, as timely objections can impact the course of the proceedings. The following is a case summary written by Gary B. Rudolph, a director at Fennemore LLP’s San Diego office, analyzing In re Village Oaks Senior Care LLC, 664 B.R. 170 (Bankr. ED CA 2024) a recent decision of interest. Summary In In Re Village Oaks Senior Care LLC, 664 B.R. 170 (E.D. CA 2024), the trial court sustained the creditor’s objection to the Debtors’ eligibility as Subchapter V debtors and de-designated them as chapter 11 cases, after finding that the objecting creditor had not forfeited or waived her ability to challenge the debtors’ eligibility. To read the full decision, click here. Facts This case involved three related debtors– Village Oaks Senior Care, LLC, El Dorado Senior Care, LLC and Benjamin L. Foulk (“Dr. Foulk”). Dr. Foulk was the 100% owner of Village Oaks and El Dorado. Gina MacDonald (“MacDonald”…

  Gary B. Rudolph Director

• 

  8 September, 2025

  The Final Denver Broncos Right of First Refusal Case (ROFR): A Masterclass in Complex Trust Litigation and Media Management

  When the Denver Broncos transitioned ownership following Pat Bowlen’s death, it triggered an intriguing intersection of complex trust law, fiduciary duties, and media scrutiny. The legal battles over the team’s sale and the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) alleged to be enforceable by a Kaiser family trust offered valuable lessons for litigation teams managing high-profile, high-stakes cases. We checked in with Dan Reilly, Director Business Litigation, Fennemore Denver who served as the Denver Broncos outside trial counsel for nearly 20 years. Dan was lead counsel on multiple Broncos’ cases including the Final Right of First Refusal that cleared the sale of the Denver Broncos’ for a record-breaking $4.65 billion sale, the then highest price in NFL history. Can you summarize the legal maze surrounding the Right of First Refusal Claim? Sure, in 1984, Pat Bowlen bought a majority interest in the Denver Broncos from previous owner Edgar Kaiser. The sale documents included a ROFR, the terms of which were litigated three times, once in 2000, 2008, and 13 years later. Upon Pat’s incapacity in 2014, disputes intensified over who had rightful control of the team’s ownership succession and the decision to sell. Complicating things was that the executors of the…

• 

  2 December, 2021

  Real Estate Law: Lessons Learned from the Pandemic and Predictions for the Future

  In a recent webinar, Wendel Rosen LLP partners Daniel Myers, Gregg Ankenman, and Albert Flor, Jr. shared important legal lessons they’ve learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and provided several predictions as to how the pandemic will impact real estate law in the future, with a particular focus on issues facing commercial landlords and tenants. Lesson One: The language of the lease is key and common law concepts are still important. During the pandemic, both landlords and tenants pulled out old leases to see how they addressed closures due to the pandemic. In particular, did the force majeure provision in the lease cover the pandemic and excuse the payment of rent? While shutdowns due to the pandemic were covered by most force majeure provisions in leases, they often stated that payment of rent was not excused by force majeure. As a result, many tenants looked to common law concepts, like frustration of purpose, impossibility and impracticability, for relief. These doctrines, that used to be mainly discussed in law school, have now become familiar to all commercial real estate lawyers. While in limited circumstances, some out-of-state courts have held that the doctrines apply, the panelists were not aware of any published opinion to…