To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008

American Express Co. v. Goetz, No. 06-2184

In declaratory relief action, and courterclaim, over the trademark to the advertising campaign using the phrase "MY LIFE. MY CARD.", summary judgment for plaintiff credit card company is affirmed over principal challenge to district court's ruling that defendant had not used the slogan as a trademark. Read more...

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 07, 2008

Vail Assocs., Inc. v. Vend-Tel-Co., Ltd., No. 05-1058

In a service mark infringement case involving the use of the term "Ski Vail", a judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where there was no clear error in a finding that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant's use of its "1-800-SKI-VAIL" service mark posed a likelihood of consumer confusion between the services offered by the two parties. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008

Monsanto Co. v. David, No. 2007-1104

In a patent action involving soybeans resistant to certain herbicides, a judgment holding defendant infringed plaintiffs' patent and awarding damages, attorney's fees, costs, and interest is affirmed in part and reversed in part where the district court correctly held that the patent was infringed, but portions of the damages award were clearly erroneous. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008

Miken Composites, L.L.C. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., No. 2006-1628

In litigation stemming from the enforcement of a patent relating to an improved softball and baseball bat design, summary judgment of non-infringement of certain claims of the patent is affirmed where: 1) the district court's claim construction was not erroneous; and 2) the district court correctly concluded that no reasonable jury could find that plaintiff's bats infringed the patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, February 07, 2008

Alliant Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Gaddy, No. C055192

In case involving insurance brokerage business's purchase of a competing brokerage, preliminary injunction entered against former majority shareholder of competing brokerage prohibiting him carrying on a competing business in California is affirmed over claim that the geographic scope of the injunction is unlawful and should be limited to only four counties where plaintiff has construction clients. Read more...