Tuesday, October 17, 2017

COACH prevails in SD Texas; Huawei prevails in ED Texas

In Coach v. Trendy Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171103 :

Pending before the court is a motion for default judgment and permanent injunction against

defendant Trendy Texas, Inc. ("Trendy"). Dkt. 20. Trendy has not responded to the motion. Having

considered the motion and applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motion should be


Trademarks and copyright were involved:

Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. (collectively, "Coach") own the trade name

"COACH" and the trademark for various different distinctive marks relating to that name. See

Dkt. 20 (listing different marks that are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office).

Coach contends that it has continuously used and never abandoned the marks at issue in this case.

Id. Coach also has valid copyrights for the following designs: "Legacy Stripe" design, "Signature

C" design,"Op Art" design, and "Horse & Carriage" design. Id. (listing the registration numbers).

On or about August 10, 2016, undercover officers entered Trendy's location at 7171 Harwin

Drive, Suite 103, Houston, Texas, and purchased several allegedly counterfeit items that were for

sale. Id.; Dkt. 22 (affidavit of investigator). Investigators confirmed the items were counterfeit, and

then police officers [*2] re-entered with a search warrant and seized 371 purportedly Coach-trademarked

items. Dkts. 20, 22. Coach contends that Trendy has no license, authority, or permission from

Coach to use its trademarks, trade dress, copyrights, or design elements. Dkt. 20. Coach asserts that

Trendy has engaged in illegal counterfeiting and infringing activities negligently or knowingly and

intentionally and with reckless disregard or willful blindness, or with bad faith. Id. Moreover,

Coach alleges that Trendy's activities are likely to create a false impression and deceive consumers

into believing its products have a connection with Coach. Id.

Separately, Huawei did well against T-Mobile in ED Texas ( 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170481 ):


(1) Huawei's motion to strike portions of Dr. Lyon's invalidity reports, Dkt. 243, is GRANTED. Paragraphs 157-159, and 211-214 in Dr. Lyon's '575 Patent Invalidity Report, Dkt. 243-2, and paragraphs 103 (only the discussion of the Nortel reference), 179-182, 315-346, and 537-552 in Dr. Lyon's '675 and '627 Patent Invalidity Report, Dkt. 243-3, are STRICKEN from the reports.

(2) T-Mobile and Intervenors' Daubert motion to exclude Dr. Leopold's Opinions Concerning Prior Art, Dkt. 247, is DENIED.

(3) Huawei's motion for leave to supplement Dr. Leopold's and Dr. Wells' expert reports, Dkt. 336, is GRANTED. T-Mobile and Intervenors are given leave to promptly supplement the report of their expert, Dr. David Lyon, with a response to the new opinions.


Post a Comment

<< Home