Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmount Holdings, LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a petition for cancellation of a trademark, brought by the owner of the INSIGNIA mark used to sell wines since 1978 against the registrant of the ALEC BRADLEY STAR INSIGNIA mark used for cigars and cigar products, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's denial of the petition is vacated and remanded for reconsideration where: 1) the Board erred in its legal analysis, in analyzing the 'fame' of INSIGNIA wine as an all-or-nothing factor, and discounting it entirely in reaching the conclusion of no likelihood of confusion as to source, contrary to law and precedent; and 2) as a result of this error, the Board did not properly apply the totality of the circumstances standard, which requires considering all the relevant factors on a scale appropriate to their merits.
Elliot v. Google, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action under the Lanham Act, seeking cancellation of the GOOGLE trademark on the ground that it is generic, the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant Google is affirmed where: 1) a claim of genericness or 'genericide,' where the public appropriates a trademark and uses it as a generic name for particular types of goods or services irrespective of its source, must be made with regard to a particular type of good or service; 2) the district court thus correctly focused on internet search engines rather than the 'act' of searching the internet; and 3) the verb use of the word 'google' to mean 'search the internet,' as opposed to adjective use, did not automatically constitute generic use.
Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int'l LLC
(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a trademark and unfair competition action brought by a haircare product manufacturer and holder of a registered trademark against a competitor haircare product manufacturer, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to show the marks were likely to be confused.
Covertech Fabricating Inc v. TVM Building Products Inc.
(United States Third Circuit) - In a trademark dispute in which no written contract designates ownership, involving the paradigm through which common law ownership of an unregistered trademark is determined when the initial sale of goods bearing the mark is between a manufacturer and its exclusive distributor, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed on alternative grounds as to ownership, where the court failed to recognize and apply the rebuttable presumption of manufacturer ownership that pertains where priority of ownership is not otherwise established; 2) affirmed as to fraud and acquiescence; and 3) vacated and remanded on damages under the Lanham Act, where the court incorrectly relied on gross sales unadjusted to reflect sales of infringing products to calculate damages.
Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Wired for Sound Karaoke and DJ Servs., LLC
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act by a producer of karaoke music tracks, alleging that the defendants performed karaoke shows using unauthorized 'media-shifted' files that had been copied onto computer hard drives from the compact discs released by the plaintiff, the district court's dismissal is affirmed where plaintiff did not state a claim under the Lanham Act because there was no likelihood of consumer confusion about the origin of a good properly cognizable in a claim of trademark infringement.
In Re: Jobdiva, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a trademark case to determine whether appellant used its marks in connection with personnel placement and recruitment services, or whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board correctly held that it failed to do so because it used its marks on software offerings, without more, the Board's decision is vacated where proper question is whether appellant, through its software, performed personnel placement and recruitment services and whether consumers would associate appellants registered marks with personnel placement and recruitment services, regardless of whether the steps of the service were performed by software.
Christian Faith Fellowsihp Church v. Adidas AG
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a petition filed by Adidas, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's final judgment cancelling a Church's trademarks for failing to use the marks in commerce before registering them, on the grounds of the Church's de minimus sale of two marked hats to an out-of-state reside, is reversed where: 1) the Lanham Act defines commerce as all activity regulable by Congress; and 2) the Church's sale to an out-of-state resident fell within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause.
Cross Commerce Media, Inc. v. Collective, Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark infringement dispute between software companies over several trademarks containing the word 'collective,' the District Court's granted summary judgment to Cross Commerce Media on virtually all points in dispute and awarded attorney's fees under the Lanham Act are reversed in part where: 1) the unregistered mark 'collective' is suggestive, not descriptive; 2) there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CI used the unregistered mark 'collective' in commerce before CCM introduced its allegedly infringing marks; 3) the district court prematurely granted summary judgment as to CI's counterclaim for infringement of the registered marks, an action that neither party requested and the district court did not explain; and 4) there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CI abandoned its registered marks 'Collective Network' and 'Collective Video.' Award of attorney fees is vacated.
Trader Joe's Co. v. Hallatt
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trademark infringement action, arising after defendant purchased Trader Joe's goods in the United States and resold them at a mimic store in Canada, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Lanham Act claims is reversed where: 1) the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act is a question as to the merits of a trademark claim instead of federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction; and 2) Trader Joe's alleges a nexus between defendant's conduct and American commerce sufficient to warrant extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act.
Oriental Financial Group v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credit
(United States First Circuit) - In an infringement action to determine whether a Puerto Rico credit union infringed a bank's word mark and trade name ORIENTAL with its competing marks COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, ORIENTAL POP, and CLUB DE ORIENTALITO, the District Court's finding of non-infringement and refusal to enjoin their use is: 1) reversed as to COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, and ORIENTAL POP, where the district court's determination of non-infringement was clearly erroneous; and 2) affirmed where the district court's determination is supportable as to CLUB DE ORIENTALITO.
Russel Road Food and Beverage, LLC v. Spencer
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trademark dispute involving the use of the mark CRAZY HORSE for entertainment services, namely exotic dance performances, the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff is affirmed where plaintiff was the assignee of a valid trademark co-existence agreement entered into with the former owner of the registered mark and therefore had the right to use the mark.
JL Beverage Co, LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action claiming of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act and Nevada state law by a beverage company-plaintiff, which sells a competing line of flavored vodkas, the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where the district court erred in: 1) failing to place the burden of proof on defendant, the moving party; 2) failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff; and 3) never analyzing whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed.
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark action concerning the mark for Pudgie's pizza chain restaurants, the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs is affirmed where there is no genuine issue of material fact that defendant Tarntino obtained his federal trademark registration of PUDGIE'S by fraud.
Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. v. Georgallis Holdings, LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a vineyard-plaintiff's appeal of a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing its opposition to an application filed by defendant to register a MAYARI mark for use on wine, the Board's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that plaintiff's registered mark MAYA and defendant's applied-for mark MAYARI are sufficiently dissimilar.
Guthrie Healthcare Systems v. ContextMedia, Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark suit brought by a provider of healthcare services against a provider of digital health-related content, the District Court's injunction which prohibited defendant from using its marks within plaintiff’s geographic service area, but placed no restriction on defendant's use of its marks on the Internet or outside plaintiff's service area, is affirmed but remanded for expansion of the injunction's scope, where the current limitations placed on defendant were based on an incorrect standard and fail to give plaintiff and the public adequate protection from likely confusion.
Cohen v. Kabbalah Centre International Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a woman who made a sizeable donation to a San Diego spiritual group had no right to obtain her money back. Affirmed a summary adjudication in relevant part, rejecting her fraud and other claims.
Brown v. Pacifica Foundation, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a board member of a nonprofit corporation was not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring her from being removed from the board. Reversed a preliminary injunction, in this case involving a nonprofit that operates public radio stations.
Summers v. Colette
(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a lawsuit accusing a board member of a nonprofit organization of self-dealing and other misconduct. Held that the plaintiff, also a board member, had legal standing even though the board of directors subsequently removed her from the board. Reversed a dismissal.
St. Joan Antida High School Inc. v. Milwaukee Public School District
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a parochial school's claim that its students were being denied state‐funded bus transportation equivalent to public-school students, contrary to Wisconsin law and the Equal Protection Clause. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part and remanded.
Garcia v. Salvation Army
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an employee of the Salvation Army could not proceed with her claims for retaliation and hostile work environment, because Title VII's religious organization exemption barred the claims. Also, it did not matter here that the Salvation Army had failed to timely raise the defense. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.
Gaylor v. Peecher
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld an Internal Revenue Code provision that excludes housing allowances from ministers' taxable federal income. An advocacy group contended that the tax provision violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Disagreeing, the Seventh Circuit held that the longstanding tax code exemption for religious housing is constitutional, reversing the district court.
Su v. Stephen S. Wise Temple
(California Court of Appeal) - Revived the California Labor Commissioner's lawsuit alleging that a preschool operated by a religious congregation violated wage-hour laws. Held that the preschool teachers were not considered ministers and, therefore, were not covered by a constitutional doctrine that prevents ministers from bringing certain types of claims against their employers. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.
Church of Our Lord and Savior v. City of Markham, Illinois
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a church's claim that a city's zoning code violated federal and state statutes protecting religious freedom by treating religious uses of property on unequal terms with analogous secular uses and unreasonably limiting where religious organizations may locate in the city. Reversed a grant of summary judgment and remanded.
Biel v. St. James School
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a Catholic elementary school teacher's claim that her employment was terminated based on her disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Held that she did not qualify as a minister for purposes of the First Amendment's ministerial exception to generally applicable employment laws. Reversed a summary judgment ruling and remanded.
J.W. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed a $4 million default judgment against the Jehovah's Witness religious organization, in a lawsuit brought on behalf of a child who allegedly was sexually molested by a congregation elder. The default judgment was a sanction for the religious organization's refusal to produce certain documents in discovery.
Orange Catholic Foundation v. Arvizu
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a Roman Catholic Diocese's petition to remove an individual from her position as trustee of an individual's trust and for damages. Held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing the trustee from liability for actions she took reasonably and in good faith.
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the constitutionality of California's requirement that charitable organizations must disclose the names and addresses of certain large contributors. Two nonprofit organizations contended that the disclosure requirement infringed their First Amendment right to free association. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the disclosure requirement survived exacting constitutional scrutiny because it was substantially related to an important state interest in policing charitable fraud. The panel reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in the state's favor.
Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton
(United States Supreme Court) - In a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against church-affiliated nonprofits that run hospitals and other healthcare facilities, brought by current and former employees of the hospitals, alleging that the hospitals' pension plans do not fall within ERISA's church-plan exemption because they were not established by a church, the Seventh Circuit's judgment affirming the District Court's decision that a plan must be established by a church to qualify as a church plan, is reversed where a plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies as a 'church plan,' regardless of who established it.
City and County of S.F. v. Regents
(California Court of Appeal) - In a case to decide whether the City and County of San Francisco can compel state universities that operate parking lots in the city to collect city taxes from parking users and remit them to San Francisco, the trial court's denial of the City's petition for writ of mandate is affirmed where the California Constitution's 'home-rule provision' -- which grants charter cities broad powers, including the power to tax -- does not create an exception to the long-recognized doctrine that exempts state entities from local regulation when they are performing governmental functions.
Tract No. 7260 Assn. v. Parker
(California Court of Appeal) - In an action brought by a member of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation to inspect the corporation's membership list, and other books and records, the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to compel inspection, on grounds that the member sought the inspection for an improper purpose, unrelated to his interest as a member of the corporation, and findings that the corporation did not timely challenge the request for the membership list as required by statute, and therefore ordered the list disclosed, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the member sought the information for an improper purpose; and 2) the corporation's challenge to disclosing the membership list was not barred by statute.
Puri v. Khalsa
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute over the control of two nonprofit entities associated with the Sikh Dharma religious community, the district court's dismissal of the claims, as foreclosed by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, is vacated where: 1) based only on the pleadings, the claims were not barred by the First Amendment's ministerial exception; and 2) the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not apply because the claims could be resolved by application of neutral principles of law without encroaching on religious organizations' right of autonomy in matters of religious doctrine and administration.
Nat'l Inst. of Famil and Life Advocates v. Harris
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by three religiously-affiliated non-profit corporations to prevent the enforcement of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, the district court's denial of the motion is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's are not entitled to a preliminary injunction based on their free exercise claims; 2) the Act is a neutral lawof general applicability, which survived rational basis review; and 3) plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims.
George v. Commissioner of IRS
(United States First Circuit) - In an appeal of a tax court decision affirming a determination by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that he owed $3.790 million in income taxes and penalties on $5.65 million in bank deposits petitioner made and interest earned from 1995 to 2002, the tax court determination is affirmed over petitioner's contentions that these deposits were not his taxable personal income but the program income of a social welfare organization that had tax-exempt status pursuant to section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. section 501(c), where an organization distinct from petitioner did not exist during the applicable tax years.
Rollins v. Dignity Health
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a putative class action against an employer, alleging it has not maintained its pension plan in compliance with the the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq., the District Court's partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where pension plan was subject to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and did not qualify for ERISA’s church-plan exemption.
Diocese of San Joaquin v. Gunner
(California Court of Appeal) - In a case concerning the ownership of property that belonged to the Dioceses before the disaffiliation of a majority of members from the Episcopal Church in the U.S., the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where, although the trial court made certain errors, applying neutral principles of law, the property belongs to plaintiffs.
Jewish Community Centers Develop. Corp. v. County of Los Angeles
(California Court of Appeal) - In a property tax refund action based on the welfare exemption set forth in Revenue and Taxation Code section 214, the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the State Board of Equalization's (SBE) interpretation of section 214 was clearly erroneous; 2) the SBE's advisory rule regarding who must file a welfare exemption is not binding and therefore should not be given independent legal effect; and 3) the County failed to establish that the trial court should have denied a tax refund because plaintiff's claims were tardy and its claim forms were incomplete.
Am. for Prosperity Found. v. Harris
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by two nonprofit organizations challenging the California Attorney General's collection of IRS Form 990 Schedule B forms, containing identifying information for their major donors, under California's Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act, Cal. Gov't Code section 12584, the district court's preliminary injunction for plaintiffs is modified to prohibit making the information public but permit defendant to keep collecting the data for enforcement
Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. US
(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action seeking attorneys fees under 26 U.S.C. section 7431(c)(3), following a settlement between the IRS and plaintiff over the disclosure of an unredacted version of plaintiff's donor list, filed as part of plaintiff's required IRS Form 990, the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees is affirmed where the government's litigation position regarding actual damages was substantially justified under 26 U.S.C. section 7430 (c)(4)(B).
Doe v. Super. Ct.
(California Court of Appeal) - In an action alleging that a church, doing business as a camp, fraudulently concealed information from parents about a camp employee's suspected molestation of their minor daughter at its summer camp, the petition for writ of mandamus is granted because under the facts of this case disclosure of suspected molestation by a camp employee was within the scope of the camp's duty to minor and her parents.
Kim v. True Church Members of Holy Hill Community Church
(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between two factions of a church over control of church property, the trial court's judgment is affirmed over meritless claims that it erred: 1) when it found in favor of respondents based on appellants' excommunication from the Holy Hill Community Church (Church) by the Western California Presbytery (WCP); 2) by admitting evidence of events occurring after the cross-complaint was filed; and 3) when it prevented appellants' counsel from cross-examining a representative of the WCP whose testimony was sought by respondents.
Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought under 45 U.S.C. section 1983, seeking to enjoin the California Attorney General from requiring plaintiff to disclose the names and contributions of the it's "significant donors" on Internal Revenue Form 990 Schedule B, which plaintiff must file with the state in order to maintain its registered status with the Registry of Charitable Trusts, the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed where: 1) the disclosure requirement did not injure plaintiff's exercise of the First Amendment rights to freedom of association; and 2) the disclosure requirement is not preempted by Congress for privacy purposes under 26 U.S.C. section 6104, part of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.
City of Spokane v. Federal National Mortgage Association
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this case, the district court's judgment in favor of defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, finding them statutorily exempt from state and local taxation of real property transfers and finding that Congress had the constitutional authority to exempt defendants from such taxation, is affirmed, where: 1) the transfer taxes at issue here are excise taxes, and the statutory carve-outs allowing for taxation of real property encompass only property taxes, not excise taxes; 2) because Congress had power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the secondary mortgage market, it had power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to ensure the preservation of defendant organizations by exempting them from state and local taxes; and 3) the exemptions do not violate the Tenth Amendment.
In the Matter of State of Maetreum of Cybele, Magna Mater, Inc. v. McCoy
(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, petitioner, a not-for-profit religious corporation that owns real property, commenced proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 and RPTL article 7 after respondent Board of Assessment and Review for the Town of Catskill refused petitioner's applications for tax-exempt status pursuant to RPTL 420-a. The Appellate Division's grant of the petitions is affirmed, where petitioner adequately established its entitled to the RPTL 420-a exemption, as the proof at trial established that petitioner "exclusively" utilized the property in furtherance of its religious and charitable purposes.
In the Matter of State of Merry-Go-Round Playhouse, Inc. v. Assessor of City of Auburn
(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, petitioner, a not-for-profit theater corporation, filed applications for real property tax exemptions with respondent assessor and was denied. Petitioner then commenced this RPTL article 7 proceeding for review of its tax assessments. Order of the Appellate Division granting the petition is affirmed, where: 1) the statute does not elevate one exempt purpose over another, and under the circumstances, the use of property to provide staff housing is reasonable incidental to petitioner's primary purpose of encouraging appreciation of the arts through theater; and 2) petitioner has demonstrated that it is entitled to an RPTL 420-a tax exemption.
Hagman v. Meher Mount Corporation
(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment quieting title of disputed property to plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) defendant nonprofit religious organization's status as a "public benefit corporation" does not make it a "public entity" immune from adverse possession under Civil Code section 1007; 2) a nonprofit religious organization's "welfare exemption" from property taxes means that no such taxes were "levied and assessed" on the property during the years it qualified for the exemption; and thus, 3) under the plain and binding language of Code of Civil Procedure Code section 325, the adverse possessor is consequently excused from the usual requirement that he pay taxes on the disputed land for five years.
Cannan Taiwanese Christian Church v. All World Mission Ministries
(California Court of Appeal) - In an unlawful detainer action between two non-profit religious organizations, trial court's order compelling defendant's pastor, who was not a party to the action, to sign the written settlement agreement in his individual capacity, is reversed and remanded where: 1) the parties' oral settlement agreement did not require the pastor to release any personal claims against the plaintiff or sign a written agreement purportedly conforming to the oral settlement in his individual capacity; and 2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the pastor.
Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a religious organization's suit against a subdivision of a national anarchist group under the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and common law trespass, district court's sanction order granting attorneys' fees and costs to non-parties, which followed the quashing of a subpoena seeking identifying information for seven e-mail account holders, is reversed where Rule 45(c)(1) cannot properly support a sanction where the cost of complying with the subpoena is minimal and there is no showing that the subpoena was facially defective or issued in bad faith.
Lefemine v. Wideman
(United States Supreme Court) - In plaintiffs' section 1983 suit against several police officers alleging that the prohibition of carrying pictures of aborted fetuses during their demonstrations violated their First Amendment rights, the Fourth Circuit's judgment affirming the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction but denial of attorney's fees, on the ground that plaintiff is not a prevailing party because he did not secure monetary damages, is vacated and remanded where a plaintiff "prevails" when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff. Here, the injunction ordered the defendant officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefited the plaintiff.
Ruiz-Diaz v. US
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit brought by non-citizen religious workers and their employers challenging a Justice Department regulation governing the process by which religious workers can apply for adjustment of status pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1255(a), judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the regulation does not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs' exercise of religion and therefore does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; 2) the regulation does not violate Equal Protection principles because it does not target any religious group, but rather, the regulation affects all members of the fourth-preference visa category who have been admitted on employment-based visas; and 3) there is no violation of plaintiffs' due process rights because the regulation does not bar religious workers from applying for adjustment of status.
Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner
(United States Second Circuit) - In plaintiffs' suit alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) over a longstanding land-use dispute to build a church and a school, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the town violated the Church's rights under RLUIPA; 2) the town lacked a rational basis for delaying and denying the church's project and therefore violated the church's Free Exercise rights; 3) the church has adequately established a class-of-one Equal Protection claim; and 4) the district court's injunction was specifically tailored to the injury the church had suffered and did not exceed the district court's discretion.