May 2010 Issue

Civil Cases

V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley,
2010 WL 1979429 (6th Cir. May 19, 2010)
In what may be the final chapter in this long−running dilution saga, the Sixth Circuit affirms the injunction against a Kentucky sex toy store’s use of the name “Victor’s Little Secret” due to a likelihood of dilution by tarnishment of plaintiff’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark under the TDRA.

Au-Tomotive Gold Inc. v.
Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
2010 WL 1794018 (9th Cir. May 6, 2010)
Ninth Circuit holds that defendant’s sale of marquee license plates bearing authentic Volkswagen badges is not protected by the first−sale doctrine due to likely post−purchase confusion.

College Network, Inc. v.
Moore Educ. Publishers, Inc.,
2010 WL 1923763 (5th Cir. May 12, 2010)
Fifth Circuit affirms a jury’s verdict that the defendant’s purchase of the plaintiff’s trademark as a keyword to trigger advertisements for its directly competing products did not constitute trademark infringement.

Franklin Mint Co. v.
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP,
2010 WL 1744635 (Cal. Ct. App. May 3, 2010)
California Court of Appeal resurrects malicious prosecution suit against law firm, holding that the firm had no probable cause to prosecute federal trademark dilution and false advertising claims against collectibles maker Franklin Mint based on its sale and advertising of Princess Diana memorabilia.