Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Copyright Act Of 1976 And Prejudgment Interest, Jon M. Powers
The Copyright Act Of 1976 And Prejudgment Interest, Jon M. Powers
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that prejudgment interest should be presumptively available on damages-plus-profits awards under section 504(b) but should not be available for statutory damages under section 504(c). Part I argues that Supreme Court precedent suggests that the explicit reference to interest found in the Patent Act does not prevent courts from awarding prejudgment interest under the 1976 Copyright Act. Part II asserts that the 1976 Copyright Act's silence regarding prejudgment interest does not represent a congressional choice to exclude this remedy and that, in the face of this silence, the underlying purposes of section 504 should determine the propriety of …
Trademarks-Successful Plaintiffs In Trademark Infringement Actions Under The Lanham Act May Not Recover Attorney's Fees-Maier Brewing Co. V. Fleischmann Distilling Corp., Michigan Law Review
Trademarks-Successful Plaintiffs In Trademark Infringement Actions Under The Lanham Act May Not Recover Attorney's Fees-Maier Brewing Co. V. Fleischmann Distilling Corp., Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
In an action for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and for unfair competition, the District Court enjoined the defendant company from further use of the trademark and awarded the plaintiff $60,000 in attorney's fees. On appeal, held, reversed in part. The issuance of the injunction was upheld but the court declared that attorney's fees are not recoverable in trademark infringement cases prosecuted under the Lanham Act since Congress had not expressly provided for such awards.
Patents - Right To Personal Service In Contempt Proceedings
Patents - Right To Personal Service In Contempt Proceedings
Michigan Law Review
Complainant obtained in the district court of Massachusetts a final injunction against the manufacture and sale of a device by defendant, a Michigan corporation. In a subsequent term of court, complainant brought contempt proceedings for an alleged violation of the injunction. Copies of the petition, motion, and order to show cause were sent by registered mail to the defendant's place of business. Objection to the jurisdiction of the court was raised upon the ground that the term in which the injunction had issued had expired and the decree, as to compensation, had been satisfied; hence personal service as in a …