Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
|
The Tabberone™ Archives These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement. When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position. |
Source: http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/213410-recent-patent-infringement-cases-filed-in-u.s.-district-courts April 5, 2009 - Content has not been altered. |
6/19/2008 10:57 AM By Marilyn Tennissen Monster Cable Products Inc. vs. Timex Corp. According to the original complaint, since 1978 plaintiff Monster Cable has been designing, manufacturing and selling a broad array of electronic products and accessories with a particular focus on cables for audio and video components. "Monster packages its cables and other products in distinctive source-indicative packaging for which it holds a number of intellectual property rights, including design patent and trade dress rights," the suit states. "Monster has patented its unique package designs to prevent other marketers from confusing consumers as to the source of goods that are not Monster products." Specifically, Monster claims it owns the rights to U.S. Design Patent No. D466,405 for a unique package design. Monster alleges that defendant Timex uses packaging for its watches that infringe the '405 Patent. "Watches sold by Timex and particularly watches sold under the Timex Kids brand use packaging that is insubstantially different from Monster's own patented packaging," the complaint states. Monster is seeking damages for patent and trade dress infringement including: defendant's profits or other compensation or monetary remedy; punitive, exemplary or treble damages; attorneys' fees; costs; injunctive relief; and other just and proper relief. Eric Findlay of Ramey & Flock PC in Tyler is representing the plaintiff with Robert W. Payne of LaRiviere Grubman & Payne LLP in Monterey, Calif. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward. Case No. 2:08-cv-238-TJW |
General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Corporate Lawyers |
Definitions |
Federal Court Cases Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations |
Federal Statutes Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
|