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
The City of Buffalo, New York Tuesday filed a complaint against major gun manufacturers for fueling gun violence through their business practices. The case is in the Supreme Court for the State of New York in Erie County. The complaint identifies the gun manufacturers as “ghost gun defendants.”
Kronstadt), the Court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s indirect patent infringement claims for failure to sufficiently allege Defendant “made” the accused product. Plaintiff had argued that using the patented methods in the design process, which guides the subsequent manufacturing process, is sufficient to state a claim.
District Court for the Central District of California states that the parties “agreed to a settlement in principle and will finalize the outstanding matters before the pretrial conference scheduled for July 16, 2021, with the district judge.” In response to Fashion Nova’s request that the court compel Ms. Versace to testify.
The New Zealand Court of Appeal has just released a judgment on the cross-border application of New Zealand consumer and fair trading legislation ( Body Corporate Number DPS 91535 v 3A Composites GmbH [2023] NZCA 647 ). In response, 3AC protested the New Zealand court’s jurisdiction.
Insurers for a glass manufacturer cannot pursue most of their claims against two contractors over a 2017 factory explosion, a Michigan federal court ruled, saying waiver of subrogation clauses in the underlying service contracts bar all causes of action except those arising from gross negligence.
VIP Products firmly rejected the use of the Jack Daniel’s trademarks by a manufacturer selling a line of dog toys that mock various beverage manufacturers. All members of the court joined Kagan’s opinion finding that toy a condemnable infringement of the Jack Daniel’s marks. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet” replaces “Old No.
Montana 8th Judicial District ( Supreme Court 2021 ). The Supreme Court has sided with Gullett’s estate — finding that the 14th Amendment does not prohibit this case from moving forward. With Specific Jurisdiction , the Court’s recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Superior Court of Cal.,
In a declaratory judgment action filed in October 2020 , WWW and Bernstein asked a New York federal court to formally declare that they did not run afoul of the indie intimates brand’s rights by using a lookalike “Silhouettes Design.” Fast forward to May 2021, and following a combination of the two cases before the U.S.
At the same time, Lillys complaint points out that Empower is no mom and pop shop, but rather a large-scale manufacturing operation engaged in a nationwide scheme to sell its untested products by misleading consumers about their safety and efficacy.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Facebook, Inc. In other words, “Consumers are likely to be misled into believing that [her] products are manufactured by, licensed by, sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise associated with Gucci.” According to the joint lawsuit that they filed on Monday in the U.S.
In the complaint that it filed in a federal court in California on Monday, Nike claims that Customs By Ilene, Inc., One of those third-parties that is looking to piggyback on the appeal of Nike and the burgeoning customization market? Drip Creationz. ” Corona, California-based Drip Creationz does not stop there, though, per Nike. .”
Ultimately, Maglula argued that Amazon made it “impossible” to bring the third-party sellers “to court and investigate sources of the knock-offs.”. Following failed attempts by Amazon to compel arbitration and then to have the case transferred to a federal court in its native Seattle, Judge Liam O’Grady of the U.S.
Mint then uses the mutilated coins to manufacture new coinage. However, it ultimately refused to pay, claiming that testing revealed “a very high percentage of coins submitted were actually made by a manufacturer other than the United States Mint” – i.e. a substantial percentage of the coins were counterfeit.
NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION. (a) As will come as little surprise to many on this blog, I oppose such government requirements imposed on individual contractors and employees as inimical to free speech , a view shared by various federal courts. I have the same concerns over the arrest of protesters in other countries like France.
Setting the stage in its July 26 filing, WGACA asserts that at “the heart of the instant action is Chanel’s attempt, through the courts, to control the secondary/resale market by attacking a reseller of its goods with multiple and unfounded claims which Chanel continues to press despite the absence of a factual basis.” in 2012.”
At the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, after which Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye announced her retirement, actions of note included: Government immunity. The court granted review in County of Santa Clara v. The court granted-and-held in In re Z.T. The court granted review in Cynosure, LLC v.
A behind the scenes scuffle between Lululemon and Peloton recently landed in federal court, with the exercise bike -maker arguing that Lululemon threatened it with litigation over its “similarly striking” garments. According to the declaratory judgment action that it filed with the U.S. Drip Creationz. and adidas America, Inc.
by Dennis Crouch In a recent nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling ordering the correction of inventorship for U.S. Tube-Mac, is the plaintiff in this case and is looking to manufacture its own version of the container systems. Tube-Mac Indus., Campbell , No. 2022-2170 (Fed. Iolab Corp. ,
Abiru to the Nigerian Supreme Court and highlighted its significance for the development of Nigerian conflict of laws. Mayela Celis on 24 November 2021 in one blog post praised the appointment of Justice Loretta Ortiz Ahlf – a private international law expert – to the Mexican Supreme Court.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a lower court’s summary judgment decision – in which it held that Costco was liable to Tiffany & Co. for willful trademark infringement and counterfeiting – and remanded the case back to the district court for a new trial. The lower court sided with Tiffany & Co.
Supreme Courtactions of note at its conference yesterday included: Negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court agreed to hear Downey v. The court yesterday also granted review in Lanier v. ” Vehicle sales arbitration. ” Vehicle sales arbitration. ” Vehicle sales arbitration. .”
Share The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Biden administration to temporarily reinstate a rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulating “ghost guns” while a challenge to the rule continues in a federal appeals court. On June 30, O’Connor vacated the rule nationwide.
At the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, a double one, actions of note included: Lemon Law. The court granted review in Rodriguez v. The appellate court concluded the definition is “a catchall for sales of essentially new vehicles where the applicable warranty was issued with the sale.” FCA US, LLC.
In terms of what such hypothetical legal issues look like, they run the gamut – from potential trademark infringement and dilution causes of action to questions about the role of the right of publicity. along with Manufacture de Haute Horlogerie SA, which owns the manufacturing facilities for the Genta brand.
A tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail. There must be not just outrageous conduct but conduct intended to cause severe emotional distress. Courts regularly exclude injuries associated with the exercise of free speech or artistic expression. Again, the court agreed.
A tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail. There must be not just outrageous conduct but conduct intended to cause severe emotional distress. Courts regularly exclude injuries associated with the exercise of free speech or artistic expression. Again, the court agreed.
Share The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in the case of a truck driver who was fired from his job after a wellness product marketed as free of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, caused him to fail a routine drug test. Horn’s economic losses, she argued, are the “damages he sustain[ed]” because of that injury.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday that the province of British Columbia (BC) may bring a class action on behalf of multiple governments in Canada for harm caused by opioids. Faced with a public health crisis caused by the opioid epidemic, BC enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act in 2018.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. All the action on the relist front after the Oct. The Supreme Court granted review in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. And finally, the court granted the petition in Abdulla v. Rivas-Villegas , 20-1690 ).
Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) failed to adequately analyze the climate change and environmental justice impacts of two liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals on the Brownsville Shipping Channel in Texas and two pipelines that would carry LNG to one of the terminals. 20-1045 (D.C.
On June 15, 2023, the court issued the ultimate judgment not only on the torts claims but perhaps the state of our politics. Louis, a Missouri court was faced with a claim from Carly Munoz who in 2019 sent to Six Flags’ Fright Fest with her cousin. A tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail.
We have yet to see a filing over the emotional distress caused by this year’s microwave Turkey prank where college kids are texting their parents to ask how long to cook their turkeys in the microwave. Some things are happily left out of the courts. One such case now in court was brought by Amanda DuVall, 28.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. Then, on Monday morning, the court disposed of two long-running free-exercise-of-religion cases. The court granted the petition in Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. The court also denied review in Coonce v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ 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