Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[07/01] Arnold's Wines, Inc. v. Boyle
District court order granting defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment is affirmed where sections of the New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws banning direct sales to consumers by out-of-state liquor retailers and instituting a three-tier system for the regulation of alcoholic beverages evenhandedly regulate the importation and distribution of liquor within the state and do not discriminate against out-of-state producers in violation of the Commerce Clause, and thus are a valid exercise of the state's rights under the Twenty-first Amendment.

[06/26] TAG/ICIB Services, Inc. v. Sedeco Servicio de Descuento en Compras
District court judgment against defendant for overdue demurrage owed to plaintiff is reversed where: 1) Puerto Rico Commerce Code Article 947's 180-day limitations period applies to plaintiff's claim for overdue demurrage charges on international shipments to Puerto Rico; and 2) the court did not err in failing to apply the laches presumption, as the parties offered scant facts relevant to such an inquiry and the parties consented to judgment based on the stipulation.

More...

Contracts

[07/02] Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GBMH & Co.
In a trademark infringement action involving the enzyme-based dietary supplement Wobenzym, the District Court's preliminary injunction requiring Defendant to cease selling a dietary supplement is affirmed in part, where Defendant did not meet its burden to prove that Plaintiff ceased production of the supplement; but vacated in part, where a District Court must find a substantial risk of danger to the public or other special circumstances in order to enter an interlocutory order recalling a product in a trademark infringement case.

[07/01] Bristol West Ins. Co. v. Wawanesa Mutual Ins. Co.
In a dispute involving the interpretation of an insurance contract, district court judgment is reversed where the plain language of the Out of State Coverage clause in the policy makes specific reference to any accident that occurs out of state, and does not focus on the limits of the out of the state financial responsibility law, and thus the insurance policy necessarily expands the amount of liability coverage in this case since the accident occurred in New Brunswick.

More...

Copyright

[06/26] Cadkin v. Loose
In an appeal from an order granting attorney's fees to Defendant following Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of their copyright lawsuit, the order is reversed where, because Plaintiffs remained free to refile their copyright claims, they were not "prevailing parties" and thus were not entitled to attorney's fees.

[06/05] William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey
In an action involving an insurance firm's accrual of claims under the Copyright Act, which has a three-year statute of limitations for civil actions, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the federal discovery rule, not the injury rule, governs the accrual of civil claims brought under the Copyright Act; 2) the district court erred in granting defendant's motion for a new trial and summary judgment with respect to accrual of the statute of limitations issue, as the evidence before the first jury was sufficient to support its finding that plaintiff was not on inquiry notice of defendant's infringement before the date in question; and 3) the court properly rejected defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the causation issue, as plaintiff met its burden to demonstrate a causal connection between the copyright infringement and defendant's profits.

More...

Family Law

[07/01] Jenkins v. Jenkins
In a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the return of Petitioner's son to her custody in Israel, judgment for Respondent is affirmed where Petitioner failed to establish that there was an actual "removal or retention" by Respondent or that the alleged retention was "wrongful."

[06/26] Charisma R. v. Christina S.
In a child custody dispute, trial court orders declaring plaintiff a presumed parent of the child and establishing a schedule for reunification is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the finding that the Family Code sec. 7611(d) parentage presumption applies, as the record shows that plaintiff actively participated in the child's conception and cared for her following birth, the limited duration of her parenting of the child does not defeat plaintiff's claim to presumed parent status, and plaintiff received the child into her home and openly held her out as her natural child; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there is no basis to rebut the parentage presumption as substantial evidence supports the finding that the Elisa B. factors are present and that plaintiff actively participated in the child's conception with the understanding she would parent with defendant, and no other facts justified rebuttal of the parentage presumption; and 3) defendant's equal protection claim fails as she has not shown that a case involving a man in plaintiff's circumstances would be decided any differently under the law, and failed to meet her burden of showing that the order declaring plaintiff the second parent was an unconstitutional infringement of her state and federal rights to substantive due process.

More...

Trademark

[07/02] Marilyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GBMH & Co.
In a trademark infringement action involving the enzyme-based dietary supplement Wobenzym, the District Court's preliminary injunction requiring Defendant to cease selling a dietary supplement is affirmed in part, where Defendant did not meet its burden to prove that Plaintiff ceased production of the supplement; but vacated in part, where a District Court must find a substantial risk of danger to the public or other special circumstances in order to enter an interlocutory order recalling a product in a trademark infringement case.

[07/02] Marshak v. Treadwell
In an action related to a trademark dispute involving the singing group "The Drifters," district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the court did not err in issuing contempt findings against the plaintiffs as they reassembled plaintiff's business under different names in order to evade the injunction issued by the district court judge; 2) the court erred in holding co-plaintiff Revels in contempt, as defendant never actually moved for him to be held in contempt, and he thus never obtained notice and a separate hearing; and 3) the court properly awarded defendant attorney's fees, but abused its discretion in refusing to impose any remedy other than attorney's fees, as plaintiff continued to evade the injunction and infringe the trademark. The matter is remanded for an order of accounting of plaintiff's profits.

More...