1. eBay, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Court: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
Case No.: 2018-1-CV-336315
Issues: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, Fraud, Violation of California Penal Code,502(c) and (5) Violation of California Business and Professions Code,17200. Defendant now moves to compel arbitration.
Summary: Agreeing to the affirmation of the Complaint, recorded on October 17, 2018. Offended party eBay, Inc. works as one of the world’s biggest online marketplaces. Respondent Amazon.com could be a tech monster that offers essentially anything possible. In differentiate to eBay, Amazon offers items straightforwardly on its commercial site, regularly competing specifically against its third-party dealers. eBay affirms that over the past few long time Amazon has executed a plot to invade and misuse eBay’s inside part e-mail framework. Amazon did this to enrol high-value eBay vendors to Amazon. Amazon damaged eBay’s client understanding and approaches and actuated eBay dealers to do the same since the rules disallow eBay individuals from utilizing eBay’s “M2M” email framework to request individuals to offer off the platform.
2. PUMA SE v. FOREVER 21, INC.
Court: United States District Court, C.D. California
Case No.: 2:17-cv-02523
Issue: Design patent infringement
Summary: On the heels of reports that Forever 21 is advertising carbon copy forms of footwear from Rihanna’s Fenty line for Puma, the German sportswear giant has slapped the copycat retailer with a plan obvious, exchange dress, and copyright encroachment claim. Agreeing to Puma’s suit, which was recorded late final week within the U.S. Locale Court for the Central Area of California, the Los Angeles-based quick design brand has copied three of the foremost noticeable footwear plans from Rihanna’s collection for Puma in an endeavour’s to “trade on the considerable goodwill of Puma, Rihanna, and the Fenty shoes.” Puma affirms in its suit that in light of the “immense ubiquity and acclaim” of its Rihanna line of footwear, Forever 21 – an infamous copycat – has taken to replicating its plans, specifically, the Creeper, Hide Slide and Bow Slide styles. In association with the previously mentioned plans, Puma attests to claims of exchange dress and copyright encroachment. Furthermore, the sportswear giant claims that Forever 21’s duplicates of the Creeper grant rise to a plan obvious infringement claim, as well, in association with U.S. Obvious No. D774,288. Asset forward in Puma’s complaint: “Puma’s ‘Creeper’ sneaker and ‘Fur Slide’ and ‘Bow Slide’ shoes have delighted insignificant and vital victory, and are currently being sold in both brick-and-mortar stores and online retailers, such as Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom’s, Urban Suppliers, and Bloomingdales, among others.” Per Puma, “The request for the Fenty Shoes is so awesome that the Puma site has been overpowered with activity on days that the shoe dispatch and, in reality, smashed the day the ‘Fur Slide’ was, to begin with, advertised for sale.” The Creeper fashion, in specific, “routinely offers out inside minutes of the dispatch of each modern form due to overpowering demand.”
The sportswear brand continues on to note: “Seeking to trade on the substantial goodwill of Puma, Rihanna, and the Fenty Shoes, [Forever 21] has blatantly copied each of these shoes. Indeed, although the Bow Slide was only released this month, [Forever 21] is already offering copies of it on its website.”
Judgement: There were two logical conclusions to draw from these facts,” Forever 21 contended. “Puma distorted fabric actualities to the Patent Office and the Copyright Office, subsequently committing extortion on those workplaces; or Puma has distorted to the expending open that Rihanna designed the shoe at-issue in this case, subsequently distorting to this court that her association impacts the goodwill it fights is related with the declared exchange dress.” According to Forever 21, the pleadings within the case and Puma’s public statements lead to the conclusion that Rihanna may be a “necessary and irreplaceable party” to the case. Usually, something with which Judge Gutierrez shows up to be on board, expressing final month that “good cause for this expansion [of time to include extra parties to the case] exists since the pleadings and Puma’s claim public statements lead to the conclusion that Robyn Rihanna Fenty may be an essential and vital party to this case or, at the exceptionally slightest, a third-party that may be joined.”
3. Adidas America, Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.
Court: United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Case no.: 16-35204
Issue: Issuing of Preliminary Injunction
Summary: Skechers challenged the district court’s issuance of a preliminary order denying it from offering shoes that purportedly infringe and weaken Adidas America, Inc.’s Stan Smith exchange dress and Three-Stripe trademark. The board confirmed in part, holding that the district court did not mishandle its discretion in issuing the preliminary directive as to adidas’s claim that Skechers’s Onix shoe infringes on Adidas’s unregistered exchange dress of its Stan Smith shoe. Be that as it may, the board switched in part, holding that the district court failed in issuing a preliminary order as to Adidas’s claim that Skechers’s Cross Court shoe infringes and weakens its Three-Stripe mark.
Judgement: LanhamAct / Preliminary Injunction The board asserted in part and switched in part the district court’s preliminary directive denying Skechers USA, Inc., from offering shoes that purportedly infringe and weaken Adidas America, Inc.’s Stan Smith exchange dress and Three-Stripe stamp. Confirming in portion, the board held that the district court did not mishandle its tact in issuing the preliminary order as to adidas’s claim the Skechers’s Onix shoe infringed on adidas’s unregistered exchange dress of its Stan Smith shoe. The board concluded that Adidas was likely to succeed on the merits of this claim since the exchange dress was non-functional, the exchange dress had procured auxiliary meaning, and there was a significant probability of confusion between the parties’ items. In expansion, the district court did not clearly fail in finding a probability of hopeless hurt to the Stan Smith. Turning around in portion, the board held that the area court blundered in issuing a preliminary injunction.
4. Rajesh Masrani vs Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi High Court
Issues: Is there a clear cut qualification between an “artistic work” and a “design”? Do these prints drop beneath the category of “artistic work” within the Copyright Act or “design” beneath the Plan Act, 2000?
Whether the copyright subsists within the plaintiff’s agreements in view of Area 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957?
Is the registration of copyright obligatory to claim security beneath the Copyright Act, 1957?
Summary: The offended party is a private company, which deals with the design and is beneath the administration of famous fashion designer Tarun Tagliani, who had accused the respondent of copyright infringement within the “artistic works” made by the plaintiff’s company. These “artistic works” incorporate the drawings made by the offended party whereas it created pieces of clothing and adornments. The offended party claims that these drop beneath the category of aesthetic works specified in Segment 2(c)(i) of the Copyright Act. The designs printed on the texture as well the ultimate articles of clothing planned were too claimed to be imaginative works by the offended party. The offended party moreover claims to be, to begin with, the proprietor of copyright of all the company’s items under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act. An interim directive had been requested in this respect within the plaintiff’s support, controlling the litigant from duplicating, printing, distributing, conveying, offering or advertising for a deal in any shape, the print which are imitations of the designs of the plaintiff.
Judgement: The Court requested that the plaintiff’s work was without a doubt entitled to protection under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act because it is an “artistic work.” Since it is an original work of art, it isn’t competent of being secured under Section 2(d) of the Plans Act, 2000. The Court too cleared any questions with respect to enrollment of the copyright. It expressed that enrollment of the work was not an obligatory condition for claiming harms against copyright infringement. In this way, the offended party can look for full protection under the Copyright Act. It moreover ruled that the scope of control held by the Appellate Court in interfering with an arrangement passed by the learned Single Judge was restricted. In this way, any assist perceptions made by the Appellate Court should not have any bearing on the ultimate choice of the suit. As the court was not slanted to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the offer was rejected.