This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
We are pleased to bring to you a guest post by Roshan Santhalia ruminating on the question of whether a cease-and-desist notice before instituting a trademark or copyright infringement suit should be issued or not. Cease and desist by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 He completed his B.A.
A cease and desist letter is typically the most cost-effective option, but in some cases a particularly egregious or blatant instance of trademark infringement can call for initiating a lawsuit. In any scenario, the optimal first move is to try a cease and desist letter. Litigation is always unpredictable.
Just days after a complaint was filed against restaurant chain Sweetgreen by Chipotle Mexican Grill for trademark infringement, dilution, and deceptive business practices, Sweetgreen has changed the name of its offending product in order to reach possible settlement. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. Sweetgreen Inc., case number 8:23-cv-00596, U.S.
Why This Article Matters to You If your company has recently received a cease-and-desist letter or any form of legal threat related to using Meta Pixel or similar technology, this article should help you start to understand next steps. Their expertise can be the difference between a costly legal battle and a favorable resolution.
Why This Article Matters to You If your company has recently received a cease-and-desist letter or any form of legal threat related to using Meta Pixel or similar technology, this article should help you start to understand next steps. Their expertise can be the difference between a costly legal battle and a favorable resolution.
In a cease and desist letter sent to the pub at the beginning of May 2022, Conde Nast threated to sue the pub over its name, stating that Condé Nast is the proprietor of the Vogue mark. Vogue, the village pub, has existed for approximately 200 years and Vogue, the magazine, has only existed for about 130 years.
The modus operandi of bullying and legal threats which are baseless by large entities gets initiated by serving a cease and desist notice which contains threats of instituting a trademark infringement suit. Further the defendants were also restrained from issuing any other baseless threats. [3]
In broad terms, both defendants have agreed to permanently cease and desist from knowingly or intentionally performing any of the activities detailed in a comprehensive list. “Generally speaking, non-attorney litigants are less like to be victorious than those assisted by counsel. The image below contains a small sample.
Would Sending a Cease-and-Desist Notice Harm Your Chances of Securing an Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction? Some Perspectives Would Sending a Cease-and-Desist Notice Harm Your Chances of Securing an Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction? On the other hand, this gives a chance to the violating party to quickly dispose of the goods.
“This can include engaging in open discussions by way of cease-and-desist notices on pirate operators, ensuring that illegal enterprises are voluntarily shut down, and criminal referrals to international and local law enforcement agencies. Putting a Number on It?
Of course, patent owners have always had the option of sending cease-and-desist letters. In patent litigation, both infringement and invalidity issues may be argued. The third party requestor is no longer involved after filing the request for reexamination.
Bungie previously won several lawsuits against cheaters, either by default or through confidential settlements, but AimJunkies assigns little value to these achievements. AimJunkies stresses that, after Bungie sent a cease and desist letter in 2021, it removed the contested software from its platform.
After Meril had made a declaration to cease and desist, the parties settled and agreed that the proceedings were concluded and applied for discontinuance of the proceedings under Rule 360 Rules of Procedure (RoP), but disagreed on who should bear the costs of the proceedings. c) and 275.2
If patent infringement litigation is so costly, what options are available to startups and small businesses? Let’s explore realistic enforcement options for small and midsize companies who do not have millions of dollars to spend litigating. How can small businesses afford patent litigation? A lot can be at stake.
Should you send a trademark cease-and-desist letter? Sending a trademark infringement cease-and-desist letter is a serious matter. As a result, the trademark owner is not only forced to litigate, but they must do so in an inconvenient venue which will substantially increase legal costs.
The Lenz case got a lot of press, but it ended with a confidential settlement. To my knowledge, the only litigated case that resulted in a 512(f) win was Online Policy Group v. The 512(f) plaintiff wins after 3 years of litigation and a bench trial. As a result, we’ve seen very, very few successful 512(f) enforcements.
million settlement with Fashion Nova. The short answer is that the FTC can still get money through administrative litigation. ” In effect, a settlement such as this one demonstrates the agency settling the future potential Section 19 action, and it has done this many times previously, even before AMG.
Morgan Securities, LLC (“JPMS”) for allegedly including overbroad release provisions in settlement agreements. As part of the order, JPM agreed to pay an $18 million file and to cease and desist from any further violations of Rule 21f-17(a). The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) levied an $18 million fine against J.P.
These letters, typically spearheaded by law firms known for mass litigation, can be intimidating and costly. These letters often demand quick settlements to avoid litigation. The complaints were often created using a template, indicating a strategy to secure quick settlements rather than addressing specific grievances.
Enforcing Copyright The traditional pre-litigation enforcement tool is a demand letter. Traditional Pre-Litigation Demand Letters Obviously, the stronger the identity of a right is explained in a demand letter the more likely the letter will have an effect. The copyright holder always has the option to initiate legal proceedings.
weigh up and anticipate what a litigation case entails in the big picture and in light of your business. Enforcement strategy: litigation or agreement? Any enforcement strategy usually begins by contacting the counterparty and negotiating a friendly settlement: in some countries, this initial stage is mandatory, but not in Portugal.
” DG and Dewberry Engineers had previously litigated trademark infringement claims against each other back in the 2006-2007. That litigation ended with a settlement agreement that allowed DG to use only the “Dewberry Capital” mark, and only for certain services in certain geographic areas.
When settlement discussions proved fruitless, Romag sued. Will it incentivize more trademark litigation since it clearly establishes that a showing of willfulness is not required to obtain a profits award? After trial, the jury found that Fossil had acted “in callous disregard” of Romag’s intellectual property rights.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content