Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65679
Apple sued Samsung for trade dress infringement on its iPhone and iPad product line. Apple sought expedited discovery before a hearing for a preliminary injunction. Samsung asked for reciprocal expedited discovery. While the court agreed that Samsung was entitled to parity, this did not allow Samsung to seek discovery on Apple’s future products. Apple had based its preliminary injunction motion on its current product line and so the tradedress of future products is irrelevant (therefore not worthy of expedited discovery treatment) to the upcoming motion.
Trademark Law Briefs Trademark Law Briefs
ProMex, LLC v. Hernandez, 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 21832 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
This case is informative on what could happen when that settlement agreement is breached down the line. After an initial infringement suit, plaintiff and defendant agreed that defendant could use its mark only in Southern California. They also agreed plaintiff would abandon another unrelated registration. Defendant sold outside Southern California so plaintiff sued for infringement and breach of contract. Defendant said it didn’t have to perform because plaintiff never abandoned its registration.
Trademark Law Briefs Trademark Law Briefs
BBU, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corporation 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62473 (S.D. Cal. 2010)
Plaintiff sells thin sliced bread called “Sandwich Thins.” Defendant planned to launch a similar product using the terms “Thins.” Plaintiff obtained a preliminary injunction, which it appears Defendant pushed the boundaries of on several occassions. Although the court never found the conduct sanctionable, it did modify the injunction to address these borderline issues.
At issue in this round, plaintiff argued that the injunction was too narrow and should cover all bread-related products. The court disagreed- Plaintiff’s products are only bread products primarily associated with making sandwiches, hamburgers, and hot dogs,m inlcuding but not limited to buns, rolls, flatbread, sliced bread and thin buns. It does not extend to other bread products such as baegls, muffins and baguettes because these are sufficiently distinguishable from plaintiff’s Sandwich Things that an ordinary consumer is unlikely to be confused.
Trademark Law Briefs admin
