Northern District of Illinois Draws Line Between Trademark Infringement and Trade Dress Infringement

In AU Electronics, Inc. v. Harleysville Group, Inc., No. 13 C 5947, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2887 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2015) the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Harleysville Group, Inc. and Harleysville Lake States Insurance Co. (collectively Harleysville), finding, in pertinent part, that the underlying complaint did not allege “personal or advertising injury.” AU Electronics, Inc. was sued by Sprint and T-Mobile for allegedly buying cellphones in bulk, unlocking
Continue reading...

How Is a Dress Trade Dress? California Federal District Court Deems Clothing Design Infringement Suit as Alleging Trade Dress Infringement

In West Trend, Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Co., No. CV 14-06872-RGK (PLAx), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6807 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2015), the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of West Trend, Inc. (“West Trend”) against AMCO Insurance Company (“AMCO”), finding that AMCO had a duty to defend West Trend against a lawsuit filed by Spirit Clothing Company (“Spirit”). The underlying lawsuit involved a long sleeve shirt marketed and sold by West Trend that contained stitching allegedly
Continue reading...

Wisconsin Court Will Not Enforce Intentional Acts Exclusion For Intellectual Property Infringement Claim

In Boehm v. Zimprich, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174330 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 17, 2014), the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin held that American Family Mutual Insurance Company (“American Family”) had a duty to defend its insureds against a copyright infringement claim.  The plaintiffs filed suit against Dan and Ciara Zimprich, owners of sports memorabilia vendor “On 2 the Field”, alleging they made and sold prints and photo canvases of approximately two dozen of plaintiffs’ photographs
Continue reading...

Fifth Circuit: Contract Exclusion Does Not Apply to Copyright Infringement Claim

Looney Ricks Kiss Architects, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (5th Cir. (La.) April 4, 2012) The Fifth Circuit recently predicted that the Louisiana Supreme Court would apply a “but for” test when construing an insurance policy’s breach-of-contract exclusion. As a result, the court held that two insurers were obligated to defend and indemnify their mutual insured against a copyright infringement claim because the insurers failed to show that the injury would not have occurred but for the
Continue reading...

South Carolina Supreme Court Holds Coverage For Advertising Injuries Includes Trademark Infringement Claims

Super Duper, Inc. v. PennsylvaniaNat. Mut. Ins. Co., et. al.. (Supreme Court of South Carolina, September 14, 2009) As an issue of first impression in South Carolina was whether a policy’s inclusion of an advertising injury also encompassed trademark infringement claims pertaining to educational materials for children.  Mattel Inc. challenged the insured’s registration of four trademarks and the insured subsequently brought a declaratory judgment action in federal district court to determine if its trademark infringed on Mattel’s trademarks.  Super Duper
Continue reading...