Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Instant One Media, Inc. v. EzFauxDecor, LLC et al., No. 22-11374 (11th Cir. Mar. 9, 2023), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a damages award from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Instant One Media, Inc. (Instant One) sued EZ Faux Decor, LLC (EZ) for breach of contract under Georgia state law and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Both sell vinyl adhesive products to resurface countertops and appliances. In 2017, Instant One and EZ settled previous litigation where EZ agreed not to use the term "instant" within two words of the terms "granite" or "stainless." Instant One then registered trademarks for "instant granite" and "instant stainless." By 2018, EZ was violating the parties' settlement agreement and infringing Instant One's trademarks.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?