Posts Tagged: "punitive damages"

On October 17, the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress completed its amendments to China’s Patent Law, marking the fourth time that China has revised its Patent Law since 1992, as well as the first revision since 2008. The amendments, which will go into effect in July 2021, include several patent owner-friendly changes, including increased statutory damages for parties proving patent infringement and the creation of punitive damages to increase damages awards up to five times upon findings that a party intentionally infringed patent claims.

In the most recent development in a case between energy drink brand Monster Energy Company and maker of automotive tools Integrated Supply Network, LLC (ISN), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 2 denied Monster’s request for a permanent injunction against ISN. Monster appealed on July 3 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and ISN cross-appealed on July 12. The district court found that Monster did not offer evidence demonstrating that ISN’s infringement had actually caused a loss of control over its business reputation leading to irreparable harm and loss of prospective customers. Additionally, the court reasoned that evidence regarding consumer confusion does not necessarily demonstrate irreparable harm. Even where ISN had not ceased infringing activity, Monster still had not proven irreparable harm as required to justify a permanent injunction, said the court.

Energy drink maker Monster Energy recently prevailed in its trademark and trade dress infringement lawsuit against Integrated Supply Networks (ISN), a maker of automotive tools and related goods. Although the jury verdict awarded zero actual damages for infringement, it did award $5 million in punitive damages against ISN after Monster Energy proved that Integrated Supply acted with malice, oppression or fraud.

U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California recently issued an order granting-in-part and denying-in-part a motion for summary judgment made by Detroit, MI-based automaker General Motors in a copyright case brought by a Swedish artist who painted a street mural which GM used in its marketing materials. Although Judge Wilson granted summary judgment in favor of GM on the plaintiff’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and punitive damages claims, the artist’s claim for copyright infringement has been allowed to proceed to trial.

Manhattan Beach, CA-based entity Desilu Studios, Inc., filed a complaint alleging trademark infringement and other claims against New York City-based television and film production firm CBS Studios. The complaint, filed in the Central District of California, asks the court to declare Desilu Studios the correct owner of trademarks covering the use of the Desilu trademark, first coined by famed TV stars Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz.

On October 5, 2016, a jury in Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. – litigated before Judge Swain of the Southern District Court of New York – awarded Tiffany & Co. (Tiffany) $8.25 million in punitive damages for willful and bad faith infringement of their trademark by defendant Costco Wholesale Corp. (Costco). This award, in combination with an earlier award of $5.5 million in profits and statutory damages, brings the total damages owed by Costco to $13.75 million. The case is particularly notable for several reasons, but specifically because punitive damages were awarded.