How trademark defendants are winning from MedImmune
By Bobby Ghajar and Carolyn S Toto
In 2007, the US Supreme Court set a new test for declaratory judgment actions in MedImmune. Its decision continues to have a profound impact on trademark cases.
In 2007, in the patent case MedImmune v Genentech, the US Supreme Court set out a new test for determining whether there is an ‘actual controversy’ required to maintain a declaratory judgment action under the Declaratory Judgment Act. It eliminated the Federal Circuit’s ‘reasonable apprehension’ test and replaced it with an ‘all circumstances‘ test, giving district courts broader discretionary powers and also giving would-be defendants more leeway.
Over the past six years, various courts have held that MedImmune applies equally to trademark cases. In particular, a trademark owner’s cease-and-desist letter coupled with another action — such as a follow-up communication with the alleged infringer or filing an opposition or cancellation proceeding with the USPTO — will generally confer the requisite subject matter jurisdiction under the test. Even a single cease-and-desist letter may be enough, depending on the language used in the letter…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Words matter when it comes to cyber security, says Pillsbury’s Brian E Finch.
California’s CMIA provides that an individual may recover $1,000 nominal damages based on the negligent release of information by a healthcare provider or other covered party.