Unauthorized sellers can damage your brand in many ways. One way is in relation to customer reviews of your products. Unauthorized sellers provide poor customer service, use poor or incorrect content and marketing assets, and...more
Not often do courts explicitly reverse their own precedent, especially when that precedent was a unanimous 7-0 opinion issued only a few years earlier. But that is precisely what happened last week when the Supreme Judicial...more
Price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) involves charging different prices to competing buyers for the same product. This was the key issue recently before the Ninth Circuit in U.S. Wholesale Outlet &...more
On 18 May 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a policy statement announcing its intention to combat unfair and deceptive acts related to the collection and use of consumers’ biometric information. This comes in...more
Due to the rise and dominance of eCommerce and Internet marketplaces as a sales channel, many U.S. manufacturers face increasing competition from Chinese and other international companies flooding cheaper, white-label...more
In a decision made public on 4 May, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the Court) determined that an asserted conspiracy claim concerning a price maintenance dispute should proceed to trial, despite Canada’s Competition...more
Willful blindness is never a defense to contributory trademark infringement or counterfeiting. This has been the standard ever since the 2010 Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc. decision when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the...more
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., No. 18-1233,[1] in which it held that the plaintiff in a trademark infringement action need not prove that the defendant acted...more
5/5/2020
/ § 1125(a) ,
§ 1125(c) ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Charge-Filing Preconditions ,
Compensatory Awards ,
Dilution ,
Lanham Act ,
Lost Profits ,
Remand ,
Remedies ,
Romag Fasteners v Fossil ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
Vacated ,
Willful Infringement
In July of 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (“SJC”), sitting as the Law Court (“Law Court”), decided Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, which upended residential mortgage foreclosures in Maine....more
Over 99 years ago, on June 2, 1919, the United States Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Colgate & Co. that the Sherman Act does not prevent a manufacturer from: 1) unilaterally announcing prices at which goods may be advertised...more
Rebates and other volume discounts are a frequent practice in businesses today. While few manufacturers recognize that pure volume discounts and other forms of rebates — unless designed and implemented properly — can run...more
Complex litigation today often requires a working knowledge of intricate aspects of social and natural sciences. While a litigant can educate herself on the relevant science by retaining a consulting expert, the federal...more
In a decision that should be read as a warning to mortgage industry participants doing business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the state’s high court has validated a condominium associations’ so-called “rolling”...more