Incontestable
Finnegan's monthly review of essential decisions, key developments, evolving trends in trademark law, and more.

October 2009 Issue

Civil Cases

Mary Kay, Inc. v. Weber,
2009 WL 3147888 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2009)

District court upholds the jury’s verdict finding that a reseller of expired MARY KAY goods was liable for trademark infringement, awards Mary Kay over $1.1 million in the reseller’s pretax profits, and permanently enjoins the reseller from various uses of the MARY KAY mark, but permits the reseller to continue to purchase MARY KAY as a
search-engine keyword in connection with the sale of genuine, nonexpired MARY KAY products.

Pfizer Inc. v. Sachs,
2009 WL 2876255 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009)

Southern District of New York holds that unauthorized use of VIAGRA mark on decommissioned military vehicle displayed by advertiser in front of Pfizer headquarters and
adult-entertainment exposition did not qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment, and was thus an infringing and diluting use.

Rainbow Play Sys., Inc. v. Backyard
Adventure, Inc.
,
2009 WL 3150984 (D.S.D. Sept. 28, 2009)

District of South Dakota finds plaintiff’s false-advertising claim barred by the affirmative defense of unclean hands where plaintiff engaged in the same misconduct alleged against the defendants.





UNREGISTRABLE:
YOU ® WHAT YOU EAT?


DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is intended to convey general information only and should not be construed as a legal opinion or as legal advice. The firm disclaims liability for any errors or omissions and readers should not take any action that relies upon the information contained in this newsletter. You should consult your own lawyer concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions. This promotional newsletter does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with our firm or with any of our attorneys.