CATEGORY: Trademarks
CASE: Sony vs. PAG
DETAILS: Resolution of the Constitutional Court No. 8-P dated 13 February 2018
SUMMARY: Unlike the counterfeit, the original (grey) product cannot be destroyed under the court judgment (unless it endangers human health, the environment or cultural heritage) and it is impossible to recover a large compensation
A recent decision from an Arkansas appellate court raises two important issues of enforceability of non-competition agreements: (1) the enforceability of a non-compete after expiration of the contractual non-compete period and (2) the applicable standard for determining whether a valid protectable interest exists.
A recent decision from an Arkansas appellate court raises two important issues of enforceability of non-competition agreements: (1) the enforceability of a non-compete after expiration of the contractual non-compete period and (2) the applicable standard for determining whether a valid protectable interest exists.
Let’s say a top-notch engineer in your industry wants to leave their employer – a competitor of yours – and join your organization. They never signed a non-disclosure or non-compete agreement, so there should be no worry, right?
Financial analytics firm Novantas, Inc. and two individual defendants closed out 2017 with a victory, securing the dismissal of claims by rival First Manhattan Consulting Group LLC, which accused them of competing unfairly by poaching First Manhattan’s employees in order to steal its trade secrets. The result demonstrates the need for plaintiffs in such cases to be able to prove with specificity which trade secrets were taken or threatened by the defendants’ conduct.
California has always been a challenging jurisdiction for employers in terms of limiting unfair competition by former employees and protecting trade secrets. However, employers in the state can significantly enhance their ability to protect their business interests in these areas with a little planning and strategic thinking.
Businesses marketing their products under one mark in the United States and a different mark in other countries may have a new weapon against American competitors. Previously, it was understood that to stop competing use of a foreign mark in the United States, there must have been use of the foreign mark in the United States as well. Now, a federal appeals court based in Virginia (the Fourth Circuit) has broadened the ability to stop competitor use of a foreign mark in the United States. In the case Belmora LL v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, No. 15-1335 (4th Cir. 2016), the court held that section 43 of the Lanham Act does not require prior use of a trademark in the United States before suing for unfair competition in the United States.
The case involved the FLANAX mark used in connection with the sale of naproxen sodium tablets in Mexico, including communities bordering the United States, since 1976. While the FLANAX mark was well known not only in Mexico but also by Mexican-Americans in the United States, the mark itself was never used on products sold in the United States. In the United States, the same company (through its corporate affiliate) used the brand ALEVE to sell the same naproxen sodium tablets. In 2004, a competitor began selling naproxen sodium tablets in the United States under the mark FLANAX, and with similar packaging to that used in Mexico by the competing company. It suggested in its advertising that it was the same product that had been marketed in Mexico for decades.
On December 10, 2015 the Supreme Court published on its web-site the cassation decision in case No. A67-4453/2014.
Under the merits of the case, SibSpetsProekt LLC applied to the antitrust authority against an act of unfair competition by Legion LLC advertising the labeled goods without the trademark owner’s consent (SibSpetsProekt LLC) on its web-site.
The antitrust authority held that Legion LLC’s commercial offers fall within the category of “introduction into the market” and constitute an act of unfair competition.
The Ninth Circuit did not sugar coat its decision rejecting the proposed $10.6 million settlement in a putative class action accusing Kellogg Co. of making false claims that Frosted Mini-Wheats enhance children’s ability to pay attention.
In Dennis v. Kellogg Co., the plaintiffs alleged unfair competition and false advertising claims against Kellogg based on its marketing campaign for Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s approval of the proposed settlement and vacated it, finding that the contemplated cy pres donation to charities that feed the indigent did not sufficiently benefit the class or bear any nexus to the plaintiffs’ false advertising claims. More…