Lawyers

Related Case Studies

Print to PDF Print to PDF

Arnold  E. Sklar - Representative Experience

  • Issues
  • Venue
  • Client Type
  • Practice Areas
  • Full Description
  • Result
  • Copyright Infringement
  • District Court
  • Plaintiff Toy Manufacturer
  • Copyright, Domain Name and Trademark LitigationIntellectual Property
  • Represented the plaintiff, a toy manufacturer, in a copyright infringement case.


     

  • The district court denied the defendant toy manufacturer’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, holding that the memorialization of a previous oral assignment of the copyright to the plaintiff satisfied the applicable copyright laws and established the plaintiff as the copyright owner.

  • Copyright Infringement
  • District Court
  • Plaintiff Designer Watch Manufacturer
  • Copyright, Domain Name and Trademark LitigationIntellectual Property
  • Represented the plaintiff, a designer watch manufacturer, in a copyright infringement case.


     

  • The district court granted a preliminary injunction in favor our client, finding likelihood of success of copyright infringement. On appeal, the court remanded for re-consideration in light of new developments. On reconsideration, the district court affirmed the preliminary injunction on copyright grounds and also added likelihood of success of trade dress infringement as grounds for preliminary injunction.

  • Patent Infringement
  • Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Defendant Handbag Manufacturer
  • Intellectual PropertyPatent Prosecution, Licensing and Litigation
  • Defended a handbag manufacturer in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

     

  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the basis that the defendant's accused product predates the invention. The decision was reversed on appeal, finding that the plaintiff had met its burden of showing a genuine issue of fact as to the validity of the patent.

  • Copyright Infringement
  • Federal Court, Southern District, San Diego
  • Defendant Computer Distributor
  • Copyright, Domain Name and Trademark LitigationDefamationIntellectual Property
  • The plaintiff was a manufacturer and software designer that produced inks and computer "plug-ins" that enabled the user to print black and white photos in commonly available desktop printers designed to print photos in color. Our client was a marketing company that sold the plaintiff’s products under contract. Upon termination of the business relationship, the plaintiff accused the defendant of copyright infringement by improperly continuing sales of the software. The defendant was also accused of trade disparagement.

  • Pre-trial negotiations yielded an initial demand from the plaintiffs of $2 million which was further reduced to $995,000 right before trial. After a two week trial, the jury returned a verdict favorable to the plaintiff in the amount of $155,000 on the trade libel claim only. However, before trial, summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant on the copyright infringement claim resulting in the defendants being awarded attorneys fees in an amount that exceeded the verdict on the trade libel claim.

  • Trademark Infringement
  • Federal Court, Central District, Santa Ana
  • Defendant Delicatessen
  • Copyright, Domain Name and Trademark LitigationIntellectual Property
  • Represented the defendant in a trademark infringement case in which a mid-sized producer of Italian foods sued our client, a family-owned delicatessen, for infringing on the use of their gourmet food mark used on sandwiches sold to local schools.

  • Summary Judgment was granted in the defendants’ favor based on the First Sale Doctrine. The case was declared “exceptional" and the defense fees were enhanced and returned to the client’s carrier.

  • Trademark Infringement
  • Federal Court, Central District, Santa Ana
  • Defendant Food Manufacturer
  • Business and Commercial LitigationCopyright, Domain Name and Trademark LitigationIntellectual Property
  • The plaintiff, an international manufacturer of potato chips, had manufactured and nationally distributed a product using a specific term in 1982. The defendant, a competing potato chips manufacturer,  had used the same term on its own brand of potato chips since 1986. Neither party had obtained federal trademark registrations for the term. The plaintiff filed suit for trademark infringement and false designation of origin. Prior to trial the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims for money damages to avoid a jury trial. Upon receiving survey evidence during a two and one half week bench trial, the court rendered a verdict in favor of the defense determining that the term was generic and thus not protectable.

  • Settlement negotiations resulted in no agreement to stop use of the term, or payment of monies to the plaintiff. Prior to trial, the plaintiff dismissed all claims for money damages, to avoid jury trial. Two and half week Court trial. Court verdict in defense favor, term deemed generic, free for use by all producers of these types of potato chips. Favorable decision published Classic Foods Int’l Corp. v. Kettle Foods, Inc., 468 F.Supp.2d 1181 (C.D. Cal. 2007).