And the underlying decision (by Judge Seeger): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.422932/gov.uscourts.ilnd.422932.51.0.pdf
"The Court declines the request to award profits because Plaintiff offered evidence of revenue, not profits. Revenue and profits are not the same thing. The Court declines the invitation to assume that all of the revenue equals profits."
#ScheduleA
Oh, this is potentially big. Dyson denied profits in a trademark #ScheduleA case. At oral argument, two judges "pushed back on the notion that [Dyson] was at all entitled to a profits award in the case."
https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1840545?nl_pk=2e71aa9c-c8f8-43ff-9d5a-fafec61b2085
Of course, oral arguments can mislead as to the way a case will ultimately go.
But if the panel goes against Dyson/GBC, that would be a big deal.
Frankly, this passage seems like a tacit admission of what I've argued for over a decade: It's the Federal Circuit's *application of* Rosen that's the problem, not Rosen itself.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1926162
All office phones should have a button that allows you to turn off the voicemail light without actually logging in and deleting the voicemails.
This post brought to you by the Post-It that lives over my voicemail button.
This. This is why I stopped posting over there:
"People don’t come to Twitter for its far-right hate content. Nor do the advertisers come to market to them....The fact of the matter is, people come to Twitter for news, culture, discussions. By staying, you don’t hold any ground, you maintain the viability of a platform hell-bent on promoting far-right ideology. So long as there’s content other than hate, people will have a reason to stay."
https://throwawayopinions.io/the-paradox-of-intolerance.html
@82d4c6b2 While you're getting settled in, you might want to check out @acfe394d (created by my colleague @c01c90f2), to give you a sampling of law-related content & people
"Although the court recognizes that its ex parte TRO ruling was wrong, the court doesn’t excoriate Emojico for its bogus advocacy. Instead, the court orders the merchant to answer the complaint and proceed with the litigation.... Worse, the court doesn’t question if it made the same mistake with respect to the dozens or hundreds of other defendants in this lawsuit who already settled or were subject to default judgments."
- @b8e4a7a8https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/10/in-a-sad-scheme-case-court-rejects-injunction-over-emoji-trademark.htm
#ScheduleA #Emojico
What's going on with the Mastodon web interface (advanced view)? Since yesterday, I keep getting rate limited but I'm not doing anything excessive. Nothing different from normal.
What's going on with the Mastodon web app (advanced interface)? Since yesterday, I keep getting rate limited but I'm not doing anything excessive. Nothing different from normal.
Do people make these kinds of arguments in other areas of the law? Do contracting parties argue it's "unfair" to make them sue to enforce their contractual rights? Do shareholders suggest it must be quick & easy for them to get satisfaction from misbehaving directors? I'm honestly curious.
#LawProfs #LawFedi
It's also notable that the "cost effective" solutions touted/pushed by IP owners (CBP enforcement, #ScheduleA litigation) always seem to depend on bulldozing over the due process rights of the defendants and putting additional obstacles in their paths (e.g., seizing assets or goods).
@43426d64 I don't suppose you have any cites/links handy for the soccer point? I'm writing a paper on counterfeit rhetoric and might need to add something about privacy now
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by Sarah Burstein | export
Anyway, these Dothraki-style allegations about Amazon IP enforcement ("it is known") are interesting: https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/301/614/996/626/179/original/0b90d73797ab3c59.jpg