In a June 17, 2013 ruling, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum entered judgment of non-infringement after a five day bench trial on the trademark and related counterclaims that Saturdays Surf LLC had asserted against Kate Spade LLC over Kate Spade’s use of the mark “Kate Spade Saturday.” Kate Spade had begun the lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its mark did not infringe Saturdays Surf’s “Saturdays Surf NYC” mark and its other “Saturday”-formative marks. Judge Cedarbaum first considered whether Saturdays Surf’s marks were in fact protectable as marks “because a trademark’s distinctiveness is both the key consideration in assessing its protectability and a factor in determining the likelihood of confusion.” The Court held that the “Saturdays Surf NYC” mark was protectable, but rejected “Saturdays” and “Saturdays Surf” as marks. for the Southern District of New York
Showing posts with label 12 Civ. 9260. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 12 Civ. 9260. Show all posts
Court Finds No Trademark Infringement in Kate Spade's Use of "Saturday" in a Mark
In a June 17, 2013 ruling, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum entered judgment of non-infringement after a five day bench trial on the trademark and related counterclaims that Saturdays Surf LLC had asserted against Kate Spade LLC over Kate Spade’s use of the mark “Kate Spade Saturday.” Kate Spade had begun the lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its mark did not infringe Saturdays Surf’s “Saturdays Surf NYC” mark and its other “Saturday”-formative marks. Judge Cedarbaum first considered whether Saturdays Surf’s marks were in fact protectable as marks “because a trademark’s distinctiveness is both the key consideration in assessing its protectability and a factor in determining the likelihood of confusion.” The Court held that the “Saturdays Surf NYC” mark was protectable, but rejected “Saturdays” and “Saturdays Surf” as marks. 
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Labels
05 Civ. 390
(
1
)
09 Civ. 10112
(
1
)
09 Civ. 528
(
1
)
10 Civ. 3734
(
1
)
10 Civ. 7246
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1001
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1594
(
1
)
11 Civ. 4985
(
1
)
11 Civ. 6808
(
1
)
12 Civ 5071
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3699
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3810
(
1
)
12 Civ. 4919
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5070
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5230
(
1
)
12 Civ. 6283
(
2
)
12 Civ. 779
(
1
)
12 Civ. 7902
(
1
)
12 Civ. 9260
(
1
)
12 Civ. 95
(
1
)
13 Civ. 1787
(
1
)
13 Civ. 684
(
1
)
ACPA
(
1
)
ANDA
(
2
)
Advice of Counsel
(
1
)
Affirmative Defense
(
3
)
Anonymity
(
2
)
Attorneys' Fees
(
18
)
Bifurcation
(
1
)
Breach of Contract
(
2
)
Case or Controversy
(
2
)
Contempt
(
2
)
Copyright
(
9
)
Copyright Infringement
(
76
)
Counterfeiting
(
4
)
Damages
(
7
)
Declaratory Judgment
(
7
)
Default Judgment
(
2
)
Federal Circuit
(
2
)
First Sale Doctrine
(
1
)
Fraud
(
1
)
Fraudulent Concealment
(
1
)
Infringement Contentions
(
3
)
Interlocutory Appeal
(
4
)
Judge Abrams
(
5
)
Judge Buchwald
(
3
)
Judge Castel
(
8
)
Judge Cedarbaum
(
1
)
Judge Daniels
(
4
)
Judge Dolinger
(
2
)
Judge Forrest
(
16
)
Judge Gardephe
(
5
)
Judge Hellerstein
(
4
)
Judge Oetken
(
5
)
Judge Preska
(
4
)
Judge Ramos
(
1
)
Judge Schofield
(
5
)
Judge Sullivan
(
12
)
Moot
(
4
)
Motion to Quash
(
2
)
Patent
(
1
)
Patent Infringement
(
56
)
Preliminary Injunction
(
4
)
Reasonable Royalty
(
2
)
Renewal
(
1
)
Safe Harbor
(
1
)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(
5
)
Summary Judgment
(
8
)
Trademark
(
2
)
Trademark Infringement
(
42
)
Willfulness
(
6
)
The general information and thoughts posted to this blog are provided only as an informational service to the web community and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. Nothing on this blog is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and nothing posted constitutes legal advice. You should understand that the posts by the author, who is an attorney at U.S. law firm Allegaert, Berger & Vogel, may or may not reflect the views of that firm and that the author of this blog is only authorized to practice law in the jurisdictions in which he is properly licensed to do so. For additional information, click here.