On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 the estate of Marilyn Monroe filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York against Fashion Central.  The Monroe Estate claims that Fashion Central infringes its intellectual property rights in the MARILYN MONROE mark, among other things, by selling the following garments:

The increased prominence of Section 101 in computer-related patent disputes stems from the Supreme Court case of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.[1]  Before Alice reached the Supreme Court, ten judges of the Federal Circuit considered the case en banc.[2]  The viewpoints of those ten judges were so thoroughly divergent that the court issued six separate opinions, and no explanation of the law garnered majority support.

In February of 2013, high-end jeweler Tiffany & Co. sued Costco Wholesale Corp. in the federal court for the Southern District of New York for using the designation “Tiffany setting” since 2007 in the sale of two styles of engagement rings.   According to the complaint, a sign in a Costco store in Huntington Beach, California stated: “605880 – PLATINUM TIFFANY VS2.1 1.00CT ROUND BRILLIANT SOLITAIRE RING 6399.99.”  Costco did not use the “Tiffany” designation in connection with any of its online advertising. 

On November 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeal from a Third Circuit decision finding that a settlement between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Teva) involving the anticonvulsant drug Lamictal can raise antitrust scrutiny even in the absence of a cash payment between the parties.

The closely watched case of Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands was argued in front of the the Supreme Court on Monday, offering anxious fashion designers a glimpse into how the Justices may rule. 

On October 20, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued yet another opinion finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions related to the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) are not subject to judicial review.  This decision aligns with a series of cases in which the Federal Circuit has barred review of institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), which states that “[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.”

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. asked the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to reconsider its rejection of an application for the mark GEORGE in connection with watches, clocks, jewelry, and imitation jewelry in Class 14 (U.S. Serial No. 86/651975, “Wal-Mart’s mark”).  The appeal by Wal-Mart wrestles with the issue of when goods can be considered “closely related.”

Less than a month after reversing the lower court’s determination of invalidity in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., the Federal Circuit has now upheld the invalidity of claims in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc. that, like McRO, recite computer-implemented application of rules.  The court’s rationale in distinguishing the claims of these two patents, resulting in the different outcomes, is instructive to both patentees and patent challengers.

Once a European patent application has been granted, all patentees must then choose to validate the granted application in one or more European countries.  Such a decision may have long-term business and legal consequences.  Upon payment of the grant fees to the European Patent Office, patentees will be awarded a European patent.  The European patent is unenforceable until it becomes validated in the selected countries of the European Patent Convention.

A recent UK court held that Karen Millen, a fashion designer and co-founder of the Karen Millen brand, was prohibited from using her name, KM or K.Millen or any other confusingly similar names in connection with clothing and homeware.