The plaintiff, Rose Acre, the nation’s second-largest producer of eggs, has along with other egg producers been charged in a number of class action suits with conspiring to fix the price of eggs, in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. (It has been embroiled in antitrust litigation before, perhaps because it has been so successful. See A.A. Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc., 881

The district court dismissed this diversity class action suit (which seeks damages and other relief for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510) for want of federal subjectmatter jurisdiction, on the ground that the claims are barred by federal law.

There are

In order to remove a lawsuit filed in state court to a federal district court under the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, a defendant must file a notice of removal within thirty days of the date on which the plaintiff serves “the defendant.� Courts have split in interpreting this thirty day limitation: the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have held that the thirty day period ends th

This case raises important issues regarding the doctrine of “copyright misuse� as it has developed in the wake of the technological revolution of the last 30 years. Plaintiff- Appellee, Apple Inc. (“Apple�), is one of the leading producers of innovative technological hardware and software that has spurred enormous consumer demand for ever evolving technology. The Defendant-Appellant, Psyst

Ursula Marisol Funes and Mauricio Funes appeal the trial court’s judgment in favor of Ernesto Antonio Villatoro on numerous grounds. Villatoro also appeals, contending that the trial court erred by failing to award him “attorney’s fees for a successful appeal.� We affirm in part, reverse and render in part, and reverse and remand in part.

Overview

Villatoro and his brother-

Authentic Hendrix and Experience Hendrix sued Hendrix Licensing and Andrew Pitsicalis on trademark infringement theories claiming that defendants over used a Jimi Hendrix headshot logo and signature. Jimi's brother Leon Hendrix is on Hendrix Licensing's board of directors.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA�) prohibits “cybersquatters� from registering internet domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to registered service marks and trademarks. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1). The prohibition contained in § 1125(d)(1) applies when a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark that is distinctive “at the time of

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
(“ACPA�) prohibits “cybersquatters� from registering internet
domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to registered
service marks and trademarks. See 15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(d)(1). The prohibition contained in § 1125(d)(1)
applies when a domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to a mark that is di

While passing through an intersection at roughly 30 miles per hour, a 1993 Ford Explorer was struck by another car near the left rear wheel. The Explorer rolled over; David Show, the driver, and Maria Federici, a passenger, were injured. They sued in state court, contending that the Explorer was defective because its design rendered it unstable.

The suit was removed under the diversity juri

In this appeal, Jackson Hewitt, Inc., a franchisor, asks us to decide whether it can be held liable to Frank A. Kaman and Ellen M. Kaman, investors defrauded by an affiliate of one of its franchisees. On the facts presented, we hold that Jackson Hewitt is not liable to the Kamans. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment entered on the jury's verdict in the Kamans' favor. On the Kamans' cross-ap

Plaintiffs, the recording companies Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Brothers Records Inc., Arista Records LLC, Atlantic Recording Corporation, and UMG Recordings, Inc. (together, "Sony"), brought this action for statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Sony argued that the defendant, Joel Tenenbaum, willfully infringed the copyrights of thirty

The defendants, Roll-A-Cover, LLC, and Michael P. Morris, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, James D. Cohen and Roll-A-Cover of New Jersey, LLC.1 On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) found facts that were not supported by the evidence when it determined that the plaintiffs had proven fraud and negligent misrepresentation; (2) f

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A., sued Managed Solutions Group, Inc. (“MSG�), Akanoc Solutions, Inc., and Steven Chen (collectively “Defendants�)1 for contributory copyright and trademark infringement, contending that Defendants were liable for their role in hosting websites that directly infringed Louis Vuitton’s trademarks and copyrights. After a trial, a jury found Defendants liable and

Home Depot has more than 2,000 retail stores, each of which stocks thousands of items. Customers can buy more than 250,000 items on Home Depot’s web site, or by special order at a retail outlet. It would be impossible to manage such a complex inventory without a computer database—and setting up a database requires a classification of its contents into categories, such as hand tools and applian

This is an appeal in an action brought under the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, K.S.A. 60-3320 et seq. The defendants, former employees of the plaintiff Progressive Products, Inc. (PPI), challenge the district court finding that they misappropriated protected trade secrets, and, on review before this court, they additionally challenge the remedial procedure that the Court of Appeals directed.

3 This appeal is the latest, longest, and perhaps even the
4 last, chapter in a long legal struggle involving a host of
5 trademark and unfair competition claims over the name “Patsy’s.�
6 Patsy’s Italian Restaurant, Inc., and Patsy’s Brand, Inc.
7 (collectively “Patsy’s Italian Restaurant� or “appellants�)
8 appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial

This appeal involves a contract dispute between Bart Enterprises International, Ltd., and Walter Mercado Salinas. The contract describes Bart Enterprises as being “in the business of producing and distributing entertainment programming,� and it describes Mercado as “a well-known psychic and astrologer who provides psychic and astrological counseling to the public.� It may be true, as the s

There is a substantial market for products that will prevent game animals, with their keen sense of smell, from detecting the presence of hunters. Activated carbon, when embedded in clothing, adsorbs1 and retains human scent. In 1992, A.L.S. 2Federal jurisdiction in this case is based upon the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). That jurisdiction continued despite the district courtâ€

The issue in this diversity action is whether a federal court in Arkansas has personal jurisdiction over an Iowa citizen and an Iowa limited liability company where the contact with Arkansas was a single meeting by the parties in Arkansas. Appellant Pangaea, Inc. (Plaintiff), the owner of the federal trademark “The Flying Burrito Company,� appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of its trade

A.V.E.L.A., Inc., X One X Productions, and Art-Nostalgia.com, Inc. (collectively, “AVELA�) appeal a permanent injunction prohibiting them from licensing certain images extracted from publicity materials for the films Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz, as well as several animated short films featuring the cat-and- mouse duo “Tom & Jerry.� The district court issued the permanent injunc

This appeal is from a judgment against an entertainment company that sued the current members of “Exposé,� an American girl dance band, about the trademark name of the band. Crystal Entertainment & Filmworks, Inc., is the purported assignee of the trademark rights of Pantera Group Enterprises and Pantera Productions, Inc., which created the original Exposé band in 1984. The current members o

Under §282 of the Patent Act of 1952, “[a] patent shall be presumed valid� and “[t]he burden of establishing in-validity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.� 35 U. S. C. §282. We consider whether §282 requires an invalidity defense to beproved by clear and convincing evidence. We hold that it does.

I

A

Pursuant t

of California‟s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), False Advertising Law (FAL) (§ 17500 et seq.), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.), plus common law fraud and unjust enrichment. 1 The trial court ruled that Hill‟s amended complaint failed to state a cause of action (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e)), denied further leave

In this appeal, plaintiff-appellant Voice of the Arab World, Inc. ("VOAW") challenges the district court's interlocutory order granting defendant-appellee MDTV Medical News Now, Inc.'s ("Medical News Now") motion to preliminarily enjoin VOAW from the use, sale, or promotion of the mark "MDTV," or formative versions of that mark on the Internet, in connection with medical-related informational or e

In nineteen issues, Game Systems, Inc. a/k/a Texas Game Systems appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment against and the grant of summary judgment for Forbes Hutton Leasing, Inc. (Leasing), Gametronics Gaming Equipment Limited (Tronics), and Robert Houchin (Houchin) (collectively Appellees). We affirm in part and reverse in part. Because we hold that the trial c