Source: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CourtCases/CourtCasesAlphabetically.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:25:20+00:00

Document:
Action Tapes vs Kelly Mattson 462 F.3d. 1010 (8th. Cir. 2006) District Judge dismissed lawsuit by Action Tapes where Action claimed Mattson was infringing on copyright. Judge found embroidery CDs were not computer programs but only sets of computer instructions. Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment but on the grounds that Action Tapes had not shown registration of alleged computer program and therefore could not file a lawsuit alleging infringemnt.
Court: Sewing Patterns are Data, Not Code from Wired.com, August 31, 2006.
Jack Adelman, Inc. v. Sonners & Gordon, Inc, 112 F.Supp. 187 (SD New York 1934). Jack Adelman had a copyright on the drawing of a woman's dress. Sonners & Gordon started manufacturing and selling dresses taken from the copyrighted drawing. Adelman sued claiming copyright infringement. Court ruled the copyright covered the drawing but not the dresses made from the drawing.
Advent Syatems v Unysis Corp, 925 F.2d 670 (3rd Cir 1991). Court concludes software is a "good" under the Uniform Commercial Code.
American Footwear Corp. v. General Footwear Co. Ltd.,, 609 F.2d 655 (2nd Cir 1979). General Footwear and co-defendant Universal Studios claimed the trademark rights to the word "Bionic" based upon the TV show the Bionic Woman and the Six Million Dollar Man. The court rejected their arguments.
Allison v Vintage Sports, 136 F.3d 1443 (11 Cir. 1998) Vintage Sports bought trading cards and mounted them on plaques to sell. Elisa Allison, the widow of race car driver Clifford Allison, sued claiming right of publicity. District court held the first sale doctrine superceded any rights of publicity. Court of appeals affirmed.
American Intl Pictures v Evan H Forman, 576 F.2d 661 (5th Cir, 1978). Seven major motion picture distributors sued Foreman claiming copyright infringement of 120 motion pictures. They alleged that Foreman violated their exclusive right to vend these films by selling and dealing in them through his business, 16 MM Filmland. Court of appeals agreed.
AOL v AT&T, 243 F3d 812 (4th Cir, 1999). AOL sues AT&T over the use of "You've Got Mail" and "Buddy List", both trademarked by AOL. Court rules, NO, they are generic and therefor not availabale for trademark protection.
Ayres v City of Chicago, 125 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir 1997). Chicago set aside a large part of downtown off-limits to peddlers. Ayers was selling t-shirts with a political message and was prohibited from selling them. The court said that was a no-no.
Baker vs Selden, 101 US 99 (1879). Considered the primary Supreme Court decision on the "idea-expression dichotomy" concerning copyrights. Regardless that this decision is some 130 years old, it is still law of the land and taught in law schools.
Bath & Body Works v Luzier Personalized Cosmetics, 76 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 1996). Bath and Body was ruled to be a generic term and not eligible fot trademark protection. Bath & Body Work was also claiming secondary meaning which was denied.
Batlin Vs Snyder, 536 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1976). Widely quoted decision concerning what it takes for a work to qualify for a copyright. This case also set the standard for a derivative.
Matthew Bender & Co v West Publishing, , 158 F.3d 693 (2nd Cir. 1998). Bender was using "star pagination" to show page numbers just like West Publishing in judicial opinions. Court held Bender was not infringing.
Board of Supervisors LSU v Smack Apparel, 550 F.3d 465 (5th Cir 2008). Smack Apparel was marketing t-shirts in the various school colors but the designs and wording on them made them infringing.
Bobbs-Merril vs Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). Limited the rights of copyright holders to those allowed by statute only.
Boston Professional Hockey v Dallas Cap, 510 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir 1975). Dallas Cap was making and selling emblems of the hockey teams claiming that since the team logos were not copyrighted that selling the trademark was allowed under the Lanham Act. The court of appeals disagreed.
Burke & Van Heusen v Arrow Drug, 233 F.Supp. 881 ( E.D. PA 1964). Plaintiff, the holder of the copyrights to certain musical compositions, granted to Beecham Products, Inc., in exchange for agreed royalties, a restrictive license for the use of the compositions on long playing records which were to be used only as a premium in connection with the sale of a certain shampoo. Beecham sold the records with the shampoo to Arrow Drug, Inc., which resold the records separately from the shampoo. Plaintiff claimed that the sales by defendant infringed its copyrights. The court ruled that the plaintiff had lost all rights to control the product under copyright law.
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), a landmark jurisdiction case concerning Shirley Jones and the National Enquirer, et al. Court ruled that actions directed at a resident of a state puts jurisdiction in that state.
Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994). Acuff Rose Music didn't like the paropdy of "Pretty Woman" by 2LiveCrew and sued. Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2LiveCrew saying "Fair Use".
Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Assn, 95 F.3d 959 (10. th. Cir. 1996). Court ruled using the likeness of players on parody baseball cards was not infringing. A real good discussion of the requirements for seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court.
Car-Freshner v S.C. Johnson, 70 F.3d 267 (2nd Cir 1995). Car Freshener sues Johnson over the use of a pine tree image as a air freshener. Court upheld "Fair Use" by Johnson.
See also Car-Freshner Corporation v. S.C. Johnson & Son an analysis of the 1996 decision where the Second Court of Appeals held that descriptive use of a trademark is fair use.
CD Solutions v Tooker, 15 F. Supp. 2d 986 (D. Or. 1998). Tooker and CDS claims exclusive rights to the use of "CDs". Court ruled in favor of CD Solutions saying it was generic, effectively voiding the trademark held by CDS.
Champion Spark Plugs v Sanders, 331 U.S. 125 (1947), Court ruled used products do not have the same high level of likelihood of infringement.
Charles Of The Ritz Group Ltd v Quality King Distributors, Inc, 832 F.2d 1317 (2nd Cir, 1987). Charles of the Ritz makes the perfume "Opium". Quality King was marketing a perfume called "Omni". Omni smelled like Opium, the box looked like Opium, and Opium was referenced on the box. This case is often mis-qouted by corporate lawyers who claim disclaimers are ineffective. Also check out Charles of the Ritz Analysis that goes into detail about how corporate & trial lawyers lie about disclaimers.
Clairol, Inc. v. Cody's Cosmetics, 353 Mass. 385 (1967). Clairol sought to enjoin Cody's Cosmetics from selling at retail to the general public Clairol's products designated "Professional Use Only." The court rejected this attempt except to require Cody's to use a disclaimer warning consumers that the bottles were originally part of a six-pack that was broken open.
Clorox v Proctor & Gamble, 228 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2000). Clorox claims Proctor & Gamble's advertising is false. Court of Appeals reversed lower court in favor of Clorox. Interesting for discussion by Court of trademark issues.
Close to My Heart, Inc. v. Enthusiast Media LLC,, 508 F. Supp. 2d 963 - Dist. Court, D. Utah, Central Div. 2007. Close to My Heart claimed Enthusiast Media stole proprietary scrapbooking ideas and patterns. The court found otherwise.
Country Kids v. Sheen, 77 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir 1996). Maker of dolls sued a former employee claiming she copyed her doll designs. Court of Appeals reversed preliminary injunction, saying that most aspects of the dolls were not copyrightable.
Creative Gifts v. UFO, 235 F.3d 540 (10th Cir. 2000). Toy maker Creative Gifts sued claiming trademark infringement. UFO countered claiming the name "Levitron" was generic. Court found for Plaintiff.
Custom Dynamics v Radiantz LED Lighting535 F. Supp. 2d 542 (E.D. NCar W.D. 2008). Custom Dynamics and Radiantz LED Lighting are business partners that had problems, and problems, and problems. And they went to court over them. Custom Dynamics tried to claim copyrignt infringement over the use of its product pictures and text. Court denied the injunction saying the copyright claims were not strong.
Dastar Corp vs Twentieth Century Fox, 537 U.S. 1099 (2003). .Twentieth Century Fox produced a TV series based upon General Eiseenhower's book, "Crusade In Europe" and failed to renew the copyright before it lapsed. Twentieth Century Fox reacquired the rights to the book. Dastar bought old copies of the TV series and released them as its own. Fox claimed trademark infringement. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decisions saying the TV show was public domain and Fox could not claim infringement. Good discussion of "origin" of products.
Davidoff v PLD International, 263 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2001). PLD was acquiting product manufacutured by Davidoff and reselling it after removing the etched product codes from the bottles. The court found that the removal of the product codes disfigured the bottles to the point that a consumber would likely conclude there had been tampering. That created a material difference and PLD was enjoinded from reselling the prodicts.
Dial-A-Mattress v Page, 880 F.2d 675 (2nd Cir 1991). Page began using a telephone number similar to the one used by Dial-A-Mattress. Court upheld ruling that a telephone number can be considered a trademark anf therefore protectible under trademark laws. Page lost.
Ellison Equioment v AccuCut Systems 769 F. Supp. 1090 - Dist. Court, D. Nebraska 1991 Ellison claimed trademark and copyright protection for its paper cutouts. The federal court said no. .
Equine Technology v Equitechnology, 1995, 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Equine sued Equitechnology for trademark infringement and won. Equitechnology was not too bright in this case. It was a loser from the beginning. Good example of what makes up confusingly similar marks.
Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits, 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Ets-Hoskins took several commercial photgraphs of a vodka bottle. He tried to claim the photographs of the same bottle by other photographers violated his copyrights. The court of appeals said his pictures were copyrightable but the bottle of vodka was a useful article not subject to copyright protection. How many different ways are there to take a picture of a vodka bottle?
ETW v Jireh Publishing 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir 2003). Tiger Woods sued to stop an artist from using his likeness in a painting and then selling copies. ETW claimed protection under the Lanham Act for any and all images of Tiger Woods, which the Court deemed "an untenable claim". The painting was considered protected under the First Amendment. Tiger lost.
Fogerty v. Fantasy, 114 S.Ct. 1023 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994). Discusses the grounds for awarding attorney fees in copyright cases.
Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer California, 937 F.2d 759 (2d Cir. 1991). Folio copyrighted a fabric design and claimed Byer copied it. The district court said no and the court of appeals upheld.
Fonovisa Inc. v. Cherry Auction, 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996). The Ninth Circuit held that flea market owners may be liable for vicarious and contributory infringement.
F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228 (1952), awarding statutory damages in copyright infringement even when they are larger than actual damage. In this case, F. W. Woolworth Co did not know it was infringing and felt the actual damages of $899.16 was more reasonable than the statutory damages of $5,000.00.
Galiano v Harrah's, 416 F.3d 411 (5th Cir 2005). Galiano designed uniforms for Harrah's Casinos. Court ruled clothing designs were not copyrightable.
Jorie Gracen v. The Bradford Exchange, 698 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1983). Gracen won a contest for the best painting of Judy Garland as Dorothy in the "Wizard of OZ". She received a copyright registration on the painting and sued the Bradford Exchange for using the likeness on some licensed plates. Court ruled her painting was a derivative and that her painting lacked originality and declared her copyright registration was invalid.
Graham Webb Intl v Emporium Drug Mart 916 F.Supp. 909 (E.D. Ark 1995) Graham Webb sells over-priced cosmetics through salons only. Emporium Drug Mart obtained some diverted product and was selling it cheaper. Webb sued. He lost on all counts. .
Iberia Foods v Rolando Romeo,, 150 F.3d 298 (3rd Cir 1998). Rol-Rom Foods purchases Mistolin products on the open market in Puerto Rico and sells them in New York and New Jersey at a substantial discount from Iberia's price. Iberia contended that by buying Mistolin in Puerto Rico and selling it in the continental United States, Rol-Rom had circumvented the quality control measures enforced by Iberia on all the Mistolin products it sold and sued for trademark infringement. The court of appeals rejected the argument because the quality controls measures appeared to be minimal and ruled for the defendant.
Job's Daughters, Inc. v. Lindeberg and Co, 633 F.2d 912 (9th Cir 1980). Lindberg was making and selling jewelry exactly the same as Job's Daughters. Court ruled it was not trademark infringement because the jewelry was not being used as a trademark.
John Paul Mitchell v Randalls Food Markets, 17 S.W.3d 721 (TX 2000). John Paul Mitchell sought to enjoin Randalls Food Markets from selling at retail to the general public John Paul Mitchell's products designated "Professional Use Only." A jury found for the plaintiff however the judge set aside the verdict as a matter of law. The Texas Court of Appeals upheld the judge on all counts.
John Paul Mitchell v Pete N Larry's, 862 F.Supp. 1020 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). John Paul Mitchell sues to stop Pete N Larry's et al from reselling John Paul Mitchell Cosmetics. John Paul Mitchell lost on all issues except the removal of batch codes from the merchandise.
John Paul Mitchell v Quality King, 106 F.Supp.2d 462 (5th Cir 2000). John Paul Mitchell sued to stop Quality King from selling diverted cosmetics. The court said "Sorry John Paul", not ingringrment or interference with a contract.
Jordache Vs Hogg Wyld, 828 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1987). Jordache was claiming trademark infringement over the use of "Lardashe" on jeans. Court ruled use of trademark was fair use as a parody under trademark law.
Kemp & Beatley v Hirsch, 34 F.2d 291 (E.D.N.Y. 1929), Hirsch directly copied copyrighted dress patterns sold byKemp & Beatley. The court ruled the copyrights invalid because garments cannot be copyrighted.
LEE v A.R.T. Company, 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997). A.R.T. Co buys cards and mounts them on tile. Lee sues claiming the tiles are copyright infringement because they are derivatives. Court rejects Mirage and Lee's claims while stating derivatives must show originality and be copyrightable.
Lee v. Deck the Walls, Inc, 925 F.Supp. 576 (N.D.Ill.1996). Deck the Walls buys cards and has A.R.T. Co mount them on tile. Lee sues claiming the tiles are copyright infringement because they are derivatives. Court rejects Mirage and Lee's claims while stating derivatives must show originality and be copyrightable. Rules Deck the Walls is protected by the first sale doctrine.
Leigh v Warner Brothers, 212 F.3d 1210 (11 Cir. 2000). Leigh took a picture of a statue that was used on a book cover. Warner Brothers used a similar picture in a movie. Leigh sued claiming copyright infringement. The Court upheld the doctrine that "objects in the public domain or as they occur in nature is not protected by copyright" and ruled in favor of Warner Brothers.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Haute Diggity Dog, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir 2007). Louis Vuitton did not like the dog chew toy called "Chewy Vuiton" made by Haute Diggity Dog. Lower court ruled chew toy was a parody. Court of appeals agreed. Very good discussion of what constitutes a parody and an informative discussion on dilution and tarnishment.
Major League Baseball Players Assoc v Dad's Kid, 806 F.Supp. 458 (SD New York 1992). MLBPA sued to stop Dad's Kid from using genuine licensed basdeball cards to make 3-D baseball cards. Court denied motions by MLBPA citing no likelihood of success on the issues.
Mary Muffet v. Budget Dresses, 30 F. Supp. 872 (SD New York 1939). This was a design letters patent suit in which infringement was alleged of letters patent No. 109,837, issued to Morris Sobelman, May 24, 1938, for an ornamental design for a dress. The design patent was held to be invalid by the court because there is "no inventive act in applying a well-known lace to a well-known cut of garment."
Matrix Essentials v. Cosmetic Gallery,, 870 F. Supp. 1237 (D.N.J. 1994). Matrix sued Cosmetic Gallery to stop them from reselling their products. Matrix claimed only salons were allowed to sell their products. The court disagreed.
Matrix Essentials v Quality King, , 522 F.Supp.2d 470 (2007). L'Orel (Matrix) sued to stop "diversion" of its products. The court ruled no infringement.
Mattel vs MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002). Mattel didn't like the song "Barbie Girl" and sued. Court found no trademark infringement.
McDonald's v Shop At Home, 82 F.Supp.2d 801 (MD TN 2000). Shop At Home bought and then sold some promotional toys that McDonald's only wanted sold through the fast food outlets. McDonald's claimed selling the toys without authorization was infringement. The district court ruled the first sale doctrine overruled the objections by McDonalds.
Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co, 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1018 (1989). A very flawed decision from the most overturned circuit. A.R.T. was cuting cards from a book and mounting them on tiles. Mirage sued claiming the tiles are copyright infringement because they are derivatives. 9th Court agreed but no other circuit does. Mirage has been disclaimed by most other circuits and by many legal scholars.
Moseley et al., dba Victor's Little Secret v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, 259 F.3d 464 (2003). Victoria's Secret objected to Victor's Little Secret but the Supreme Court said, "Sorry, Charlie".
My Web Grocer v. Hometown Info, , 375 F.3d 190 (2nd Cir. 2004). MyWeb sued for copyright infringement because Hometown had used its product descriptions on a new web site.
NEC Electronics v Cal Circuit, 810 F.2d 1506 (9th Cir. 1987). Cal Circuit was buying NEC computer chips overseas and reselling them in the US. NEC USA sued for trademark infringement. The court of appeals stated that since the computer chips were the same as the ones sold in the US by NEC there was no infringement.
New Kids v News America, 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir 1992). New Kids On The Block sued two newspapers because the papers used their names in unauthorized promotions. Often quoted decision involving The Fair Use Doctrine. Court ruled against New Kids.
Nitro Leisure v Acushnet, 341 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir 2003). Acushnet makes golf balls. Nitro acquires used golf balls, repairs and refurbishes them, and then resells them with a disclaimer on the box. During refurbishing, Nitro sometimes reapplied the Acushnet tradmark to the golf balls. Court of appeals said used goods have a lower consumer expectation and affirmed that there was no infringement.
CM Paula v Logan, 355 F.Supp. 189 (ND TX 1973). Logan was buying cards sold by Paula and removing the images and tranferring those images onto cermaic tiles. Since Logan was using one card per tile, the court concluded there was no copying. However the court did require Logan to begin using a disclaimer.
Pizza Hut v Papa Johns,227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir 2000). Pizza Hut sued Papa Johns claiming false advertising under the Lanham Act for the use of "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza". Pizza Hut won a jury trial but lost on appeal when the Appeals Court ruled that as a matter of law, "puffery" was not actionable.
Polymer Technology Corp. v. Mimran, 37 F.3d 74 (2nd Cir 1994). Polymer sued to stop Mimran from buying its promotional products and then reselling them. The court said it was not illegal.
Precious Moments v La Infantil, 971 F. Supp. 66 (D.P.R. 1997). Precious Moments sues to stop La Infantil from making and selling bedding from copyrighted, licensed fabric. Court ruled bedding items manufactured with lawfully acquired, authentic fabric with copyrighted design were not infringing derivative works, Court did require La Infantil to attach a notice with a disclaimer. Precious Moments lost because of the First Sale Doctrine.
t	ProCD v. Matthew Zeidenberg, 37 F.3d 74 (7th Cir 1994). Matthew Zeidenberg bought a consumer package of SelectPhone (trademark) in 1994 from a retail outlet in Madison, Wisconsin, but decided to ignore the shrinkwrap license. ProCD sued, citing the license agreemnt. The District Court rejected the license argument and ruled for Zeidenberg. Seventh Court of Appeals reversed using faulty logic. This was a bad decision.
See also Contract Formation and the Shrink Wrap License: A Case Comment on ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, A lengthy paper by Robert J. Morrill which talks about ProCD and shrink-wrap licenses and why the court got it wrong in this case. And ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg concerns "shrinkwrap licensing agreements". Excerpted article.
Quality King v Lanza, 98 F.3d 1109 (1998), a landmark case citing the First Sale Doctrine that was reversed by yhe Supreme Court..
See also L'anza Research International Inc. v. Quality King Distributors is discussed in this edited article. The only editing was to exclude other cases. The wording was not altered. This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court which reversed.
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum v. Gentile Productions, 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir, 1998). Photographer took a picture of the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame and put it on a poster with the name. The name and the building were trademarked. Hall of Fame sued. They had their own posters and didn't want competition. Court denied the Hall of Fame claims for trademark infringement claiming "Fair Use" in the use of the name and a picture of the building.
Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F. 2d 738 (9th Cir 1971). Rosenthal charged Kalpakian with infringing his copyright registration of a pin in the shape of a bee formed of gold encrusted with jewels. The court of appeals rejected Rosenthal's understanding that his copyright would effectively prevent others from engaging in the business of manufacturing and selling jeweled bees. The court went into a lengthly discussion of copyright "ideas" and copyright "expression", ideas not being copyrightable.
Sally Beauty Company v. Beautyco, 304 F.3d 964 (10th Cir 2001). Beautyco's use of "generic version of" on its GENERIX products caused Sally Beauty to sue. Sally Beauty lost, we think.
Scarves By Vera, Inc. v. American Handbags, Inc, 188 F. Supp. 255 - US: Dist. Court, SD New York 1960. Vera markets a line of women's products and accessories. American Handbags began using her towels with her logos on them to make handbags. Vera sued. The court dismissed her claims but did require American Handbags to include a better disclaimer.
Sebastian Intern., Inc. v. Consumer Contacts (PTY) Ltd.,, 847 F.2d 1093 (3d Cir. 1988). Sebastian entered into an oral contract with Consumer Contacts in which Consumer Contacts agreed to distribute Sebastian beauty products to professional hair styling salons in South Africa, but not elsewhere. A large shipment was sent back to the US by Consumer Contactsand sold without authorization from Sebastian. Sebastian sued for beach of contract and copyright infringement. Lower court granted an injunction but the court of appeals overturned the ruling using the first sale doctrine.
Sebastian v Longs Drug Stores, 53 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir 1994). Sebastian sued to stop Longs from reselling cosmetics without authorization. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals slapped Sabastian down on the first sale doctrine and accused Sebastian of Trademark Misuse.
Shelby Ford v Superperformance, 251 F. Supp. 2d 983 (D. Mass. 2002). Deals with disposing of some motions where Ford was claiming trademark infringement on the use of "Cobra". Looks like Superperformance came out the winner. Court was not happy with either side.
Smith v Wal-Mart Stores, 537 F.Supp.2d 1302 (ND GA 2008). Charles Smith really does not like Wal-Mart. He began an anti-Wal-Mart campaign which included selling materials that were very negative about Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart sued claiming trademark infringement. This decision goes into a lengthy discussion of surveys as evidence. Wal-Mart lost this round as the court ruled the items to be parodies.
Societe Des Products Nestle v Casa Helvetia, 982 F.2d 633 (1st Cir 1992). Nestle sued to stop importation of their product from Venezuela claiming their were differences in the two products. The court of appeals agreed.
Softman Products v Adobe Systems, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2001). Court states, under the first sale doctrine, resale by the first purchaser of the original article under the producer's trademark is generally neither trademark infringement nor unfair competition." It also stated, the "sale of genuine trademarked product by seller unauthorized to sell not a violation of Lanham Act".
Soltex Polymer Corporation v. Fortex Industries, Inc., 832 F.2d 1325 (2d Cir. 1987). Soltex was using a name very close to Fortex. Use of disclaimers ordered.
Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech.,, 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991). Wyse Tech claims its software is licensed, not sold, and that the "user agreement" prohibits Step-Saver from seeking damages. Court rules software is "sold" under the UCC and that "user agreements" are improperly restrictive.
Tiffany Design v Reno-Tahoe Specialty, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (D.Nev. 1999). Two companies agrue over who owns the rights to a photograph of the Las vegas Strip, taken 1998. In a confusing ruling, the Court ruled that Reno-Taho had violated Tiffany's "exclusive right to reproduce copyrighted works under 17 U.S.C. � 106(1)" but conversly ruled that Reno-Taho had NOT violated Tiffany's. "exclusive rights to create derivative works and to distribute its copyrighted work under 17 U.S.C. � 106(2) -(3)." HUH? Well, that's the 9th Circuit for you. Remember, Fantasyland is there.
Ty v. Ruth Perryman, 306 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2002). Ty doesn't like Perryman selling Beanie Babies using the name "Beanies". Court of Appeals vacated lower court injunction and remanded mostly in favor of Perryman. Good trademark dilution case.
See also Beanie Baby Trademark Wars article by Eric J. Sinrod for USA Today, October 10, 2002 and Beanie Baby Trademark Wars 2 article by Phillip Nizer about this 2002 case.
Ty v. Publications International, 292 F.3d 512 (7th 2002). Publications International publishes several collectors guides for Beanie Babies. Ty claims they cannot without a license. Real good discussion of fair use. Court of Appeals determined fair use.
UMG Recordings vs Troy Augusto 558 F. Supp. 2d 1055 - Dist. Court, CD. California, 2008. Order by District Judge dismissing lawsuit by UMG which alleged Augusto was illegally selling promotional CDs. Judge found unsolicited CDs sent to music industry recipients were gifts and the attached license was invalid. Accordingly, under the first sale doctrine, Augusto was free to re-sell these CDs regardless of restrictions printed upon them.
See also Judge Shoots Down Universal's Bogus Infringement Allegations article from the EFF about Troy Augusto and his fight against Universal Music Group (UMG). The ruling affirmmed an eBay seller's right to resell promotional CDs that he buys from secondhand stores.
United States vs Wise, 550 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir 1977). Criminal copyright case involving movies films. Sale versus license addressed.
Timothy Vernor v Autodesk C07-1189RAJ, (Sept 2009 9th Cir W. Wash) Order by District Judge stating that Autodesk's software was SOLD NOT LICENSED and that the Plaintiff, Timothy Vernor was entitled to use the First Sale Doctrine as a defense to alleged copyright infringement. This ruling is being appealed.
WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletic Association, 926 F.2d 42 (1st Cir, 1991), WCVB televised the Boston Marathon without permission from Boston Athletic who claimed trademark infringement. The court said no.
Westchester Media Co., L.P. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc, 214 F.3d 658 (5th Cir. 2000). Ralph Lauren didn't like a sports magazine using "POLO" for its title. Court concluded disclaimers would be an effective remedy to infringement among others.
Whimsicality v Rubie's Costume Co, 891 F.2d 452 (2nd Cir 1989). Whimsicality had copyrights on its costumes and sued Rubie's alleging copyright infringement. The court declared the copyright registration by Whimsicality to be invalid and awarded attorney's fees for filing for a copyright in bad faith.
Woods Vs Bourne, 60 F. 3d 978 (2d Cir. 1995). Harry Woods wrote a song, "When the Red, Red, Robin Comes Bob, Bob, Bobbin' Along", and sold the copyright to Irving Berlin. Bourne acquired the rights some years later. Great discussion of what constitutes a derivative.
Yankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co, 259 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2001). Yankee Candle sued Bridgewater over similar labels claiming copyright infringement.
Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir, 1983). Zatarains sued to stop Oak Grove from using "FISH FRY" claiming their trademark "FISH FRI" had "secondary meaning". Court disagreed and also stated "Fair Use Doctrine" prevailed. Zatarains prevailed on some other issues.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.