Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SPRING 2022, VOLUME 47, EDITION 1
Content
- 2022 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- A Look At the Trademark Modernization Act - One Year In
- Andy Warhol Foundation V. Goldsmith Redux
- Biogen Ma Inc. V. Emd Serono, Inc.
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Executive Committee 2021-2022
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Interest Group Representatives 2021-2022
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION New Matter Editorial board
- Letter From the Chair
- Letter From the Editor-in-chief
- McLe Trademark Law's Protection For Image and Likeness ... At Least If You're Famous
- Miramax's Lawsuit Against Quentin Tarantino May Set Precedent For Classification of Nfts
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Quarterly International Ip Law Update
- Table of Contents
- The California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Alumni
- The Licensing Corner
- Trade Secret Report
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Ninth Circuit Report
NINTH CIRCUIT REPORT
Anne-Marie Dao
Sheppard Mullin
Happy New Year! As we enter our third year of the pandemic, I hope that everyone is staying safe. This issue’s Ninth Circuit Report covers a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court that originated in the Ninth Circuit: Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP. In Unicolors, the Supreme Court is considering an intra-circuit conflict on the application of a federal statute.
NINTH CIRCUIT OPINION
Unicolors, Inc. ("Unicolors") alleges that a design it created in 2011 is similar to a design printed on garments that H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. ("H&M") began selling in 2015. "The heart of this case is the factual issue whether H&M’s garments bear infringing copies of Unicolors’s 2011 design. Presented with that question, a jury reached a verdict in favor of Unicolors, finding the two works at least substantially similar."1 In so finding, the jury awarded Unicolors $817,920 in damages and $28,800 in lost profits. The district court later granted attorneys’ fees and costs in the amounts of $508,709.20 and $5,856.27.