Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court Watch
Court Awards Franchisor Attorneys' Fees in Trademark Infringement Action Against Competitor
As trademark infringement actions can involve hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees for each party, a critical consideration for potential infringement plaintiffs may be whether they are likely to be awarded their fees. In certain “exceptional cases,” federal law allows parties claiming trademark infringement to be awarded their attorneys' fees. The recent decision of the federal District Court for the District of Minnesota in Zerorez Franchising System, Inc. v. Distinctive Cleaning, Inc., No. 13-2326 (D. Minn. May 5, 2015), demonstrates that patience and restraint could increase a franchisor's odds of recovering its fees in trademark litigation with a competitor.
Zerorez Franchising System, Inc. (ZFSI) is a franchisor of a carpet and surface cleaning business with franchisees throughout the United States. ZFSI has registered “Zerorez” as a trademark. One of ZFSI's franchisees operates in Richfield, MN, doing business under the name ZEROREZ (for convenience, ZFSI and the franchisee are sometimes collectively referred to as ZFSI). In April 2012, the franchisee discovered online advertisements stating “Zero Rez Carpet Cleaning.” The franchisee learned that this advertisement appeared in response to various Google searches, including “Zerorez,” “twin cities carpet cleaning,” and similar phrases. The advertisements linked to the website of a competitor, Distinctive Cleaning, Inc., which offered various cleaning services, including carpet cleaning, in the same market area. Shortly thereafter, ZFSI sent Distinctive a cease and desist letter, advising Distinctive that Zerorez is a protected mark and asserting that Distinctive's advertisements were deceptive and constituted trademark infringement.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?