Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Intellectual Property

Apr 16, 2014

Intellectual Property – Copyright Infringement Claim – Architectural Plans – Contract – Exclusive Franchise – Standing

Monterey Bay Homes, LLC v. Chambers (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-088-14, 21 pp.) (R. Bryan Harwell, J.) 4:12-cv-00891; D.S.C. Holding: Pursuant to a franchise agreement, plaintiff has an exclusive license to build and sell homes in Horry County using Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc.’s copyrighted architectural works; therefore, plaintiff has standing to bring this copyright infringement action. […[...]

Apr 8, 2014

Intellectual Property – Patent Infringement Claim – Heart Disease Drugs – Evidence – Expert Testimony

Palmetto Pharmaceuticals LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-082-14, 10 pp.) (Sol Blatt Jr., Sr.J.) 2:11-cv-00807; D.S.C. Holding: Plaintiff’s expert witnesses – a vascular surgeon, a cardiologist, and a clinician – are well qualified to testify about whether one of the uses of defendant’s drug CRESTOR® infringes on plaintiff’s patent. The court denies [&hellip[...]

Apr 1, 2014

Intellectual Property – Trademark Infringement Claim – No Likelihood of Confusion – ‘Fuel’ – Sports Clothing & Accessories – Abandonment Defense – Naked Licensing – Reverse Confusion

Fuel Clothing Co. v. Nike, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-074-14, 44 pp.) (Margaret Seymour, Sr.J.) 3:12-cv-00555; D.S.C. Holding: Despite some advertising similarities, a South Carolina manufacturer of action sports apparel and accessories – Fuel Clothing Co. – has failed to show a likelihood of confusion between its goods and Nike’s “Fuelband,” an electronic wristband that […]

Jan 28, 2014

Intellectual Property -Patent Infringement Claims – Attorney’s Fee Award – Fishing Line & Lure

Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Normark Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-022-14, 46 pp.) (Cameron McGowan Currie, Sr.J.) 3:10-cv-02140; D.S.C. Holding: The basis for plaintiff’s infringement claim kept shifting, and – despite its eventual stipulation that there was no infringement – plaintiff continues to argue that it voluntarily dismissed its claim only because enforcement was too difficult; […]

Jan 8, 2014

Intellectual Property – ‘SWAP’ Watch Does Not Violate ‘SWATCH’ Mark

Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-010-14, 26 pp.) (Duncan, J.) No. 12-2126, Jan. 7, 2014; USDC at Alexandria, Va. (O’Grady, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: In Swatch AG’s challenge to defendant Beehive Wholesale’s trademark application for its “SWAP” watch bands with interchangeable faces, the 4th Circuit affirms dismissal of Swatch’s claims for […]

Jan 8, 2014

Intellectual Property – Team Logo in Film was ‘Fair Use’

Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens LP (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-002-14, 40 pp.) (Wilkinson, J.) No. 12-2543, Dec. 17, 2013; USDC at Baltimore, Md. (Garbis, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: A plaintiff who earlier won legal protection for his drawings of an image like the “Flying B” logo briefly used by the Baltimore Ravens pro football team loses […]

Nov 25, 2013

Intellectual Property – Trade Dress – Candy Stores – Common Elements – Civil Practice – Preliminary Injunction Motion

It’Sugar LLC v. I Love Sugar, Inc. Even though defendant copied elements of plaintiff’s trade dress – along with the trade dress of other successful, high-end candy stores – plaintiff has not shown that its trade dress is suggestive, arbitrary or fanciful or that it has acquired secondary meaning.

Nov 13, 2013

Intellectual Property – Communications Act – Pay-Per-View Fight – Defendants’ Bar

J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. City Grill & Sports Bar, LLC Even though plaintiff’s private investigator’s affidavit does not mention the defendant-owner of the defendant-bar as being present while a pay-per-view fight was being shown in the bar, the affidavit (including the date and time of the unlawful interception, the name of the establishment, the specific fight observe[...]

Aug 13, 2013

Intellectual Property – Patent Infringement – Civil Practice – Discovery – Damages

Carolina Waterworks, Inc. v. Taylor Made Group, LLC While a trademark or copyright holder can seek a damages award based on the infringer’s profits, no such relief is available to patent holders. 35 U.S.C. § 284 permits courts to award damages for patent infringement in one of two ways: (1) by calculating the patent holder’s lost profits due to the infringement or (2) by determining [...]

Jul 24, 2013

Intellectual Property – Injunction Upheld for Real Estate Website

Metropolitan Regional Information Systems Inc. v. American Home Realty Network Inc. A real estate-listing website is temporarily enjoined from using photographs from online database compilers such as plaintiff, which operated local multiple listing services; although defendant website contends plaintiff cannot sue because it had not copyrighted the individual photos it used, the 4th Circ[...]

Jul 19, 2013

Intellectual Property – Trademark – Settlement Agreement — Breach of Contract Claim – Damages – Declaratory Judgment – SCUTPA

Monster Daddy, LLC v. Monster Cable Products, Inc. Where plaintiff is an inactive corporation that does not earn profits, it has not shown any damages as a result of defendants’ alleged breach of the parties’ 2007 settlement agreement. On defendant Monster Cable’s motion for reconsideration, the court grants in part and denies in part Monster Cable’s motion for summary judgmen[...]

Mar 29, 2013

Intellectual Property – PVPA – Civil Practice – Statute of Limitations – Damages

Turfgrass Group, Inc. v. Carolina Fresh Farms, Inc. Even though plaintiffs “heard industry rumblings and ‘tip-offs’ that defendants were selling TifBlair centipede grass under the fictitious name ‘Carolina Green’” after the termination of the parties’ contract in 2006, there is no indication when these rumblings and tips occurred. In any event, rumors and speculation are ge[...]

Business Law

See all Business Law News


See all Commentary


How Is My Site?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...