ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Seattle Trademark Lawyer

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Ninth Circuit Affirms Infringement Finding Against Clothing Maker

By Michael Atkins

ADVERTISEMENTS

In Quiksilver, Inc. v. Kymsta Corp., a Central District of California jury initially found the defendant clothing maker was liable for infringing plaintiff’s ROXY trademark but did not find it liable for false designation of origin.

Since the tests are essentially the same, the court resubmitted the special verdict form with supplemental instructions. The jury then found defendant Kymsta liable on both counts, and the court imposed a permanent injunction.

Kymsta appealed. On Dec. 30, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding the district court acted within the scope of its discretion. At issue were the district court’s instructions as to the meaning of “ordinary purchasers” and the relevance of past harm to Quicksliver’s trademark infringement and false designation of origin claims.

The Ninth Circuit found: “In this case, the district court properly resubmitted the verdict due to a potential inconsistency in the jury’s responses — the jury found a likelihood of confusion for trademark infringement, but not for false designation of origin, despite a marked similarity between the questions. As Quiksilver argues, the inconsistency may have been due to jury confusion as to the meaning of ‘ordinary purchasers.’ Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion in clarifying ‘ordinary purchasers’ on resubmission.

“In addition, the district court properly determined that past harm was irrelevant to the claims. See, e.g., Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions 15.5 (2008) (excluding harm as an element of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) trademark infringement and § 1125(a)(1) false designation of origin claims). The district court, thus, acted within its discretion in instructing the jury to ignore the harm questions on redeliberation.”

The case cite is Quiksilver, Inc. v. Kymsta Corp., 2009 WL 5184066, No. 02-05497 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2009).

Full post as published by Seattle Trademark Lawyer on January 10, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/03/26 08:03:07)