Kitch LLC v. Deejayzoo, LLC (Jury Trial – C.D. California): A federal jury in Los Angeles cleared beauty brand, Kitsch, represented by Brooks Kushman, from accusations that shower caps it makes infringe a New York designer’s patented design and related trademarks. After about an hour, eight jurors indicated they were siding with Kitsch, which had sued in 2019 seeking a ruling that its products did not infringe a pair of patents and trademark-protected marketing language, owned by a company called Deejayzoo. Only one of the two patents that Deejayzoo put forward made it to trial. Brooks Kushman attorneys also proved that Deejayzoo didn’t have the right to the
Terex South Dakota, Inc. et al v. Sinoboom North America, LLC – (Preliminary Injunction and Consent Permanent Injunction – S.D. Texas) – Represented Terex Corporation in a trademark infringement matter regarding the sale of BLUE mobile elevating work platforms (“MEWPs”). After learning of a Chinese manufacturer attempting to enter the U.S. market, Marc filed a lawsuit and preliminary injunction motion to stop defendant’s sale of Blue MEWPs. The Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff’s motion and halted the sale and use of Sinoboom’s BLUE MEWPs. The case shortly settled in favor of our client, Terex Corporation. This decision is the only preliminary injunction decision involving a product
Mag Automotive LLC V. Gadra Enterprises, Inc. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Represented defendant Gadra in a trademark infringement matter relating to a numbering system on automotive equipment parts. Convinced the court that plaintiff did not have any enforceable trademark rights as the asserted trademarks were functional and had no secondary meaning, and the Court granted Summary Judgment for Gadra. Also convinced the Court to deny Plaintiff Mag Automotive’ s motion for Summary Judgment on Gadra’s counterclaims alleging false advertising, business and product disparagement, and tortious interference with business relationships and allow those claims to go to trial. The matter settled before trial. Case No. 2:16-cv-12049
Innovation Ventures, LLC d/b/a Living Essentials, v. N.V.E., Inc. (Jury Trial – E.D. Michigan): Represented Plaintiff Living Essentials in trademark infringement action involving plaintiff’s 5-Hour ENERGY trademark. The jury found that Defendant N.V.E.’s sale of a competing product named “6 Hour Power” infringed Plaintiff’s trademark and awarded $10.6 million in damages. The jury also awarded an additional $11.5 million in disgorgement of N.V.E.’s profits and fully rejected N.V.E.’s $60 million false advertising claim. Case No: 4:08-cv-11867
Ancora Techs. v. Apple, Inc. 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Living Essentials v. NVE, 694 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2012)
Hochstein v. Microsoft Corp., 430 Fed. Appx. 898 (Fed. Cir, 2011)
Sunbeam Products, Inc, v. HoMedics, Inc. 412 Fed. Appx. 263 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
OnStar, LLC v. Micral, Inc., 2010 WL 3420340 (N.D.Ohio 2010)
P&M Services v. Gubb, 372 Fed, Appx. 613 (6th Cir. 2010)
Armament Systems & Procedures, Inc. v, IQ H.K., Ltd. 328 Fed. Appx. 625 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
Gubb v. P&M Services, 267 Fed. Appx. 956 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
General Motors Corp. v. Lanard Toys, Inc., 468 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2006)
General Motors Corp. v. The Wildside, 133 Fed. Appx. 106 (6th Cir. 2004)
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Zen Design Group, Ltd., 329 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2003)
Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 295 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2002)
Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 217 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2000)
STX, LLC v. Brine, Inc., 211 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
K`Arsan Corp. v. Christian Dior Perfumes, Inc., 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 27658 (6th Cir. 1998)
Advance Watch Co. v. Kemper Nat`l Ins. Co., 99 F.3d 795 (6th Cir. 1996)
J. Thomas Distributors v. Greenline Distributors,41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1382 (6th Cir, 1996)
Parameter Driven Software v. Mass Bay Ins. Co., 25 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 1994)
Janda v. Riley-Meggs Industries, Inc. 764 F. Supp. 1223 (E.D. Mich. 1991)
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Sealy Mattress Co., 873 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
Glasstech, Inc. v. Ab Kyro Oy, 769 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1985)