Also on the blog this week:
Samsung denied another bite of the Apple
The Federal Circuit on Thursday denied Samsung’s petition for an en banc rehearing of the case it decided in May. Samsung wanted a rehearing of the part of the verdict related to Apple’s design patents, which accounts for about $400 million of the $548 million in damages Samsung must still pay Apple from their first trial, according to the San Jose Mercury News.
Samsung argued that the court was wrong to allow damages to be based on its whole profit rather than a part of it.
The Federal Circuit still has to rule on a second trial that involves Apple’s patents. According to Bloomberg there are two appeals in that case, one involving the underlying liability finding and one involving the issue of whether Apple is entitled to an order blocking sales of some Samsung products.
The IP angle to Google’s Alphabet
The technology media went into meltdown this week with Google’s formation of a holding company called Alphabet.
Its choice of domain for the new company’s website – abc.xyz – attracted attention. According to The Domains, the new gTLD .xyz saw nearly 20,000 domain names registered in the two days after the announcement. The gTLD had been getting about 3,000 new registrants a day up to then.
It also turns out that many other companies had thought of the name Alphabet before Google did. According to Business Insider, BMW is looking into whether Google infringed any trade mark rights. BMW’s Alphabet provides services to companies with vehicle fleets.
Business Insider quoted a BMW spokeswoman as saying: “"We are examining whether there are any implications over trade marks.”
Some 103 trade mark registration in the US include the word “alphabet”.
The lady is not for turning
A judge has ruled against Pom Wonderful for a second time, reports The Packer. Judge Margaret Morrow of the Central District of California denied the drink maker’s request for an injunction against Pur Beverages on August 6, a repeat of her ruling in January 2014.
The Ninth Circuit of Appeals had sent the case back for rehearing, saying that Morrow had abused her discretion when she concluded Pom did not deserve a preliminary injunction. Circuit Judge David Ebel said at the time: “The district court’s likelihood-of-confusion finding leaves us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
The Packer also reports that the owner of Pur Beverages, Robert Hubbard, is pursuing a trade mark cancellation against Pom, claiming it has abandoned the Pom trade mark because it has replaced the letter “O” with a heart.
UK police claim anti-piracy win
The City of London Police’s Intellectual Property Crime Unit (Pipcu) says it has “almost entirely” stopped UK campaigns by the car, food and drink, and property industries being placed on illegal web pages, reports the BBC.
Operation Creative was launched by Pipcu in 2013. The scheme involves a blacklist that is shared with advertisement brokers whose software determines the placement of ads.
Pipcu said there has been a 73% drop in advertising from the top ad spending companies’ on the affected sites.
However, one specialist interviewed by the BBC said the strategy “does not tackle the underlying problem”. The specialist said: “[I]f a few [advertising] sectors do indeed pull out, others will automatically take their place, and the effect on the website's income may be negligible.”
Uber case driven back to state court
A trade secrets case against ride sharing service Uber has been remanded back to San Francisco Superior Court by the Northern District of California, according to Orrick’s NorCal IP Blog.
The action was brought by Kevin Halpern and Celluride Wireless earlier this year, claiming Uber stole its mobile ride-sharing technology and asserting claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract conversion and declaratory relief.
Uber had scored a victory when a judge agreed with Uber’s argument that the plaintiffs claim for conversion was essentially a claim for copying falling under the Copyright Act.
“Uber’s victory was ultimately short lived, though,” Orrick explained. “In their reply brief, the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their conversion claim if Judge White found pre-emption. Judge White obliged, and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ conversion claim with prejudice – and with it, Judge White also dismissed the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. Finding there was no remaining basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining claims, Judge White then remanded the action (including the plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims) back to San Francisco Superior Court.”
In our news this week:
The material on this site is for law firms, companies and other IP specialists. It is for information only. Please read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Notice before using the site. All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws.
© 2020 Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC. For help please see our FAQs.