Second Circuit: Statements made in settlement discussions admissible to prove estoppel

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:10:00-0500

In a decision yesterday, the Second Circuit affirmed a jury's findings in a trademark infringement case between Polo Ralph Lauren and the U.S. Polo Association. The jury found that one of the USPA's four marks was likely to cause confusion. The two parties had been involved in a previous lawsuit in the early 1980s, and the USPA's former logo was found to have infringed Polo's trademark rights.

The court held that it was not erroneous for the district court to permit evidence of statements made during settlement negotiations that one of the logos was not "offensive" to Polo, as it was necessary for the USPA's claim of estoppel. Further, the court held that it was not erroneous for the district court to refuse to give a jury instruction that the USPA, because it was previously found to have infringed, was required to stay a "safe distance" away from Polo's mark. Such an instruction would have confused the jury regarding the applicable legal standard.

More detail of PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Polo Ass'n, Inc. after the jump.

[More]

Ninth Circuit: have another look at those two moose - denial of preliminary injunction vacated

Wed, 23 May 2007 07:56:00-0500

In a decision Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to Abercrombie & Fitch over an alleged infringement of its "Moose" marks by Moose Creek, a competing clothing company.

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court had misapplied several of the factors used in the Ninth Circuit to determine likelihood of confusion, called the Sleekcraft factors, after the case in which they were first listed. Because of this misapplication, the denial of injunction was vacated, but, because the court could not say that Abercrombie & Fitch would necessarily meet the standard for a preliminary injunction, the issue was remanded for redetermination by the lower court.

More details of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Moose Creek, Inc. after the jump.

[More]

Filewrapper® | A patent, trademark, and copyright law blog by MVS - Arbitrary/fanciful marks

Second Circuit: Statements made in settlement discussions admissible to prove estoppel

Ninth Circuit: have another look at those two moose - denial of preliminary injunction vacated