Case Law Briefs

Keyword Search

Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Company

Case Number: CLB0508

Date: 06.29.2022

The territoriality doctrine does not apply to aspects of the Lanham Act in § 14(3) that are not concerned with the protection of trademark rights. Under § 14(3) of the Lanham Act, a cancellation challenge may be filed “by any person who believes that he is or will be damaged…by the registration of a mark.” Such causes of action “extend only to plaintiffs whose interest fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked,” which “requires an allegation of injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales.” If a plaintiff does not sell a marked product in a particular country, then a third-party’s re-sale of that product in that particular country does not establish damage from lost sales. Further, reputational injury generally occurs when “deception of consumers causes them to withhold trade from the plaintiff.” Thus, if there are no lost sales and no evidence that a community is aware of the plaintiff’s marks, then there is no reputational injury.

view Case Detail Download PDF

LG Electronics Inc. v. ImmerVision, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0506

Date: 07.11.2022

A reference that contains an obvious typographical error that would have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art such that the person would disregard or correct the error does not disclose the subject matter contained in that error.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc. and U.S. Oil Co., Inc.

Case Number: CLB0503

Date: 04.29.2022

A promise to buy goods from a supplier separate from a patented invention can qualify as the requisite consideration for a valid contract to satisfy the “on-sale” condition, and pre- and post-installation testing clauses in an agreement may not be sufficient to qualify for the experimental use doctrine unless they evidence that the primary purpose of the sale was to conduct experimentation.

view Case Detail Download PDF