Earlier this month in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the company directors of Hornby Street Limited, siblings Kashif and Bushra Ahmed, were not jointly liable with their company for trade mark infringement.
Read MoreOn 21 May 2024, the Federal Circuit overturned the Rosen-Durling test used to assess non-obviousness of design patents. In LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the Court en banc ruled the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents apply to design patents, specifically holding the obviousness rationale articulated in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), will now apply to design patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, 2024 WL 2280728, at 1 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) (en banc).
Read MoreMarks & Spencer (M&S) and Aldi were at loggerheads again over an alleged IP infringement. Having already publicly contested their dual production of caterpillar cakes, their latest dispute concerned festively decorated gin bottles.
Read MoreOn 9 May 2024, the US Supreme Court (the Court) held that there is no three-year limit on monetary damages for timely filed copyright infringement claims. The 6–3 decision resolves a circuit split, opens the doors to larger potential damages awards for plaintiffs, is likely to lead to increased litigation over older infringements, and leaves open the question of whether the “discovery rule” applies to copyright infringement claims. Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, No. 22-1078, 601 U.S. – (2024).
Read MoreOn 10 May 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking aimed at changing the current practices surrounding terminal disclaimers. The proposed change could have substantial effects on the enforceability of patents that are subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Read MoreLevi Strauss continues enforcement of its Tab trademark against other fashion companies. On May 7, 2024, just a couple months after filing suit against Brunello Cucinelli, Levi Strauss voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit. Levi’s filed suit against the Italian luxury fashion brand in the Northern District of California in January 2024 alleging infringement of Levi’s rectangular pocket tab trademark. Levi’s dismissed the suit after reaching a confidential settlement.
Read MoreOn 2 May 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) entered its decision in SnapRays, dba SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group,1 holding the submission of an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) Agreement against infringing third-party product listings is a “purposefully directed extra-judicial patent enforcement activit[y]” subjecting the patent owner to personal jurisdiction in the alleged infringer’s home state.2
Read MoreOn 11 April 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published guidance (referred to herein as the Guidance) on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) based tools, including generative AI, in practice. The USPTO recognizes the benefits of AI and while practitioners are not presently required to disclose whether AI is used as a drafting tool there are a variety of duties that arise with its use. The Guidance outlines the current USPTO policies and illustrates how these rules interact with the use of AI tools. Below, we will highlight different uses of AI tools and provide an overview of potential risks the USPTO discusses in the Guidance.
Read MoreThe UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has released an update this month in relation to the issue of trade mark applicants and owners providing a valid address for service. Particularly following Brexit there has been concerns about would-be trade mark owners filing applications with false or ineffective addresses for service and as a result the UKIPO is now taking a more proactive approach using their powers under Rule 11 of the Trade Mark Rules 2008.
Read MoreThe public legal dispute between luxury brand Chanel and luxury reseller What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA) continues with Chanel seeking a permanent injunction that WGACA argues is too broad. As previously reported, a New York jury previously awarded Chanel a US$4 million verdict against WGACA for sales of counterfeit Chanel-branded products Chanel, Inc. v. What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, et al., 1:18-cv-02253 (SDNY).
Read MoreCopyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.