In a recent decision,
Ezaki Glico v. Lotte International American Corporation, the Third Circuit rejected a manufacturer’s claims of trade dress infringement regarding Pocky, a chocolate covered cookie stick which Ezaki Glico invented in the 1970s.[1] The court concluded that Pocky’s overall shape and look cookie sticks partially coated in chocolate were functional and thus not protected from competitor imitation.
The Third Circuit’s decision, which focused on the definition of “functionality” as it pertains to product design, carries important implications for marketing products in the food and beverage industries.
Trade Dress Background
Ezaki Glico facts, a few words on trade dress:
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On December 10, 2020, United States District Judge Ronnie Abrams (S.D.N.Y.) granted Oath Inc. (“Oath”) and Quora, Inc. (“Quora”)’s motions for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Section 285 permits courts to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in exceptional cases. The standard was met here, according to Judge Abrams, most particularly because Plaintiff NetSoc, LLC (“NetSoc”) ignored deficiencies in its pleading for roughly three months after being informed of errors therein.
Background
NetSoc brought suit for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 (the “’107 Patent”), entitled
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Cuker Interactive, LLC filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on December 13, 2018, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California. Because it was solvent at confirmation, the debtor proposed to pay secured creditors in full, with interest at the contract rate, and general unsecured creditors in full, with postpetition interest at the “legal rate,” or a rate determined by the Court that leaves the creditors unimpaired.[1] But what rate is that?
Section 1124(1) provides that where a Chapter 11 plan, and not the Bankruptcy Code, “impairs” a claim or interest, the impaired class is entitled to vote on the plan unless it “leaves unaltered the legal, equitable, and contractual rights” of the holders.[2] In this case, unsecured creditors argued that they were “impaired” because the plan did not require the debtor to pay postpetition interest at the contractual rate or a hig
In
per curiam) affirmed the decision of the Southern District of New York denying Damone Gadsden’s motion for resentencing under the First Step Act. The opinion is consistent with recent decisions in other circuits, and reinforces the principle that the exercise of sentencing discretion is not synonymous with specific procedural requirements.
In 2007, Gadsden was convicted of charges related to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, then sentenced to 300 months in prison. Following an appeal, the district judge reduced his sentence to 262 months, in contemplation of then-pending federal legislation to reduce the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Several months later, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 increased the amount of crack required to trigger the applicable statutory penalty range. Following the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, which gave retroactive effect to “covered offenses” whose penalties were modified by relevant provisions of
Right To In-Person NY Trial Hangs Over $2B RMBS Case By Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Banking newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
Primary area of interest
Thank You!