About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - April 2021)

handle is hein.ali/retuc0511 and id is 1 raw text is: UNFAIR COMPETITION 3D CHAPTER 1. THE FREEDOM TO COMPETE § 1. General Principles D.Md.2020. Quot. in case quot. in sup. Developer of senior-living community sued former employees, alleging that defendants misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets and engaged in unfair competition when they downloaded plaintiff's confidential heat maps, pricing sheets, and underwritings during their employment and used them to create a competing business. This court granted plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, holding that plaintiff established the likelihood of success on the merits of its claims, because it provided sufficient evidence that the misappropriated information constituted trade secrets and that defendants unfairly interfered with plaintiff's business by misusing them. The court explained that plaintiff supplied substantial evidence that defendants used plaintiff's proprietary and confidential information while in plaintiff's employ to substantially interfere with its ability to compete, as defined by Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1, including evidence of email exchanges between defendants incorporating plaintiff's confidential underwritings and evidence that they downloaded plaintiff's proprietary information onto personal drives. Brightview Group, LP v. Teeters, 441 F.Supp.3d 115, 135. CHAPTER 3. THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS TOPIC 1. SUBJECT MATTER OF TRADEMARK LAW § 15. Generic Designations U.S.2020. Cit. in sup. Provider of online travel reservations and related services under the brand Booking.com, which was also the domain name of its website, filed federal trademark applications to register four marks containing the term Booking.com. A Patent and Trademark Office examining attorney denied the applications and the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board affirmed, concluding that Booking.com was generic and unregistrable. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Booking.com was descriptive, rather than generic, and that the term had acquired secondary meaning. Affirming, this court held that a term styled generic.com was a generic name for a class of goods or services and ineligible for trademark protection under Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 15 only if the term had that meaning to consumers, and, because consumers did not perceive the term Booking.com to signify online hotel-reservation services as a class, Booking.com was not generic and was potentially eligible for federal trademark registration. United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., 140 S.Ct. 2298, 2303. TOPIC 3. INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS COPYRIGHT ©2021 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.