Monthly Archives: February 2014

//February

Trademark Attorney Review of Great Lakes Transportation v. Yellow Cab of Florida

Trademark Attorney Review of Great Lakes Transportation v. Yellow Cab of Florida In a case for trademark infringement, attorneys’ fees and costs can be awarded for exceptional trademark cases.  However, it is important to recognize the difference between a trademark infringement case versus a contract dispute between two former partners for the use of a trademarked name.   This is why it is vital to hire an experienced trademark attorney that understands the nuances of trademark law.  Too many attorneys claim to practice trademark law when in fact these attorneys have no real experience in trademark law.  In this case, the dispute over whether trademark law applies cost the plaintiff a significant amount of attorneys fees.  In fact, the case overall generated 351 separate docket entries which likely required a substantial amount of attorney's fees. Background The dispute arose over the use of METRO CARS and METRO CARSFL where there was allegedly a written agreement that provided a license for the trademarks.  The agreement provided that termination of the agreement required discontinued use of the METRO CARSFL.  It appears that the trademark argument was that because discontinuation should have occurred, the case shifts to trademark infringement.  However, a seasoned trademark attorney would likely recognize that this is a breach of contract.  This also highlights the importance of a carefully drafted contract that specifies what happens at the termination of the agreement.  It is important to note that the Defendant proffered evidence supporting the argument that a license agreement never existed. Exceptional Cases The Lanham Act allows the court to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases.  However, “exceptional” is not otherwise defined by the Act.  In some cases, the courts have held that [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 February 21st, 2014|Trademarks|Comments Off on Trademark Attorney Review of Great Lakes Transportation v. Yellow Cab of Florida

Patent Attorney Review of Pride Family Brands v. Carl’s Patio

Patent Attorney Review of Pride Family Brands v. Carl’s Patio The issue of novelty may not garner much attention with the patent office during the application phase, but that all changes during litigation when opposing patent attorneys seek to invalidate your patent rights. One of the main requirements for obtaining patent rights is novelty, which states that: […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 February 10th, 2014|Patents|Comments Off on Patent Attorney Review of Pride Family Brands v. Carl’s Patio

Slip & Fall Attorney Review of Ramsey v. Home Depot

Slip & Fall Attorney Review of Ramsey v. Home Depot Virtually everyone has visited a business and said “somebody is going to get hurt” from a dangerous condition.  Diving a little deeper, you may have wondered whether the owner would be liable if somebody actually becomes injured.  Your slip & fall attorney will first determine whether the danger is concealed or open and obvious.  If the danger is concealed, then the business owner has a duty to warn the public of the hidden danger, but only if the business itself knew or should have known of the concealed danger.  Alternatively, a business can be held liable for injuries that result from a failure to use ordinary care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Open and Obvious Hazard In Florida, while a business owes a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, there is no duty to warn against an open and obvious condition which is not inherently dangerous.[1]  However, liability is always apportioned according to fault.  Thus, even when the danger is open and obvious, an injured party may still argue whether the condition was dangerous and whether the owner or occupier of the land should have anticipated that the dangerous condition would cause injury, despite that the danger was open and obvious.[2] Facts In the instant case, Gudrun Ramsey was shopping at Home Depot.  After shopping, she returned to the parking lot and tripped on a wheel stop that is common place in many parking lots.  Ramsey sued home depot for negligence claiming that home depot breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and also breached its duty to warn of any dangerous, [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 February 7th, 2014|Slip & Fall|Comments Off on Slip & Fall Attorney Review of Ramsey v. Home Depot

Patent Attorney Review of Correct Craft IP Holdings v. Trick Towers

Patent Attorney Review of Correct Craft IP Holdings, LLC v. Trick Towers, LLC South Florida Patent Attorneys keep busy with the steady stream of innovation coming from the marine industry.  In Correct Craft Holdings v. Trick Towers [1], the patent attorney for the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the Defendant had sold or offered for sale a water sport tower contained in the Plaintiff’s patent.  It is not uncommon, however, for the Defendant who was served with the complaint for patent infringement to simply […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 February 5th, 2014|Patents|Comments Off on Patent Attorney Review of Correct Craft IP Holdings v. Trick Towers