Case Summaries
Intellectual Property
[07/02] Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GBMH & Co.
In a trademark infringement action involving the enzyme-based dietary supplement Wobenzym, the District Court's preliminary injunction requiring Defendant to cease selling a dietary supplement is affirmed in part, where Defendant did not meet its burden to prove that Plaintiff ceased production of the supplement; but vacated in part, where a District Court must find a substantial risk of danger to the public or other special circumstances in order to enter an interlocutory order recalling a product in a trademark infringement case.
[07/02] Marshak v. Treadwell
In an action related to a trademark dispute involving the singing group "The Drifters," district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the court did not err in issuing contempt findings against the plaintiffs as they reassembled plaintiff's business under different names in order to evade the injunction issued by the district court judge; 2) the court erred in holding co-plaintiff Revels in contempt, as defendant never actually moved for him to be held in contempt, and he thus never obtained notice and a separate hearing; and 3) the court properly awarded defendant attorney's fees, but abused its discretion in refusing to impose any remedy other than attorney's fees, as plaintiff continued to evade the injunction and infringe the trademark. The matter is remanded for an order of accounting of plaintiff's profits.
[07/01] In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board judgment is affirmed where: 1) the board properly affirmed the rejection of petitioner's trademark application, as the Shinnecock Indian Nation is an institution and thus falls within the protection of 15 U.S.C. sec. 1052(a); 2) the USPTO's refusal to register his marks was not a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, as the petitioner was provided a full opportunity to prosecute his applications and to appeal the examining attorney's final rejections to the Board; 3) the refusal did not violate petitioner's equal protection rights, as the Board and the examining attorney had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying registration; and 4) the refusal to register the mark was not racial discrimination in violation of the United Nations' International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as petitioner failed to establish any racial discrimination, and he has no private right of action under the treaty.
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[05/29] People v. McLernon
Trial court order denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss his conviction for possession of a controlled substance for sale is reversed and remanded where the trial court improperly failed to consider the merits of defendant's motion for relief.
[05/27] Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of Orange County
Petition for writ of mandate to challenge a trial court order denying plaintiff's motion to quash service is denied where a Japanese manufacturer can be served through its American subsidiary as California law allows service on a foreign corporation by serving its domestic subsidiary.
[05/26] Vaughn v. LJ Int'l, Inc.
In a derivative action alleging breach of fiduciary duty, trial court order sustaining defendant's demurrer without leave to amend is affirmed where plaintiff's standing to bring the claims against the corporation and its directors in California is governed by British Virgin Islands Business Companies Act sec. 184C requiring approval of the BVI High Court before a shareholder can sue derivatively, and the plaintiff had no such approval.
More...
Immigration Law
[07/02] Chibwe v. Holder
Petition for review of an order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture is denied where: 1) the present does not have jurisdiction to review the agency's decision that plaintiff's asylum application was untimely; and 2) the agency did not err in denying their request for withholding of removal, as plaintiff's failed to cite any evidence in the record which would support a finding that they faced a threat because of their membership in a particular social group or any other relevant statutory ground if they were returned to their home country.
[07/02] Cendrawasih v. Holder
Petition for review of an order denying asylum is denied where plaintiff failed to establish that she had a well-founded fear future persecution, as the country conditions in Indonesia without more do not qualify a Christian Indonesian for asylum, and the individual difficulties plaintiff has faced are a series of isolated incidents no greater than those faced by other Indonesian Christians have been found insufficient to warrant asylum.
[07/02] Hassan v. Holder
Petition for review of an order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture is denied where: 1) the agency's adverse credibility determination, based on material inconsistencies between plaintiff's asylum application and hearing testimony, is supported by substantial evidence; and 2) substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that plaintiff failed to show failed to show past political persecution, and failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.
More...
|
