Comments on: Payless and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:08:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Michael Calmese http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/comment-page-1/#comment-55878 Michael Calmese Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:58:53 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/#comment-55878 Update....United States Patent Trademark Office Trial And Appeal Board GRANTS DEFENDANT Calmese's Motion To Suspend Adidas' Petition To Cancel Calmese's 1996 registered trademark "PROVE IT!"...Case summary: This is all due to Mr. Calmese's cease and desist demand letter in which Adidas consented too and stopped use of Calmese's trademark! Ironically, Adidas even asked Mr. Calmese how much this would cost to settle and produced a speadsheet to confirm Adidas' off-shore production of PROVE IT branded t-shirts presumably sold in Dick's Sporting Good retail stores across the United States!! See case for more information...Calmese is looking for an attorney?? Update….United States Patent Trademark Office Trial And Appeal Board GRANTS DEFENDANT Calmese’s Motion To Suspend Adidas’ Petition To Cancel Calmese’s 1996 registered trademark “PROVE IT!”…Case summary: This is all due to Mr. Calmese’s cease and desist demand letter in which Adidas consented too and stopped use of Calmese’s trademark! Ironically, Adidas even asked Mr. Calmese how much this would cost to settle and produced a speadsheet to confirm Adidas’ off-shore production of PROVE IT branded t-shirts presumably sold in Dick’s Sporting Good retail stores across the United States!! See case for more information…Calmese is looking for an attorney??

]]> By: Michael Calmese http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/comment-page-1/#comment-53845 Michael Calmese Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:59:32 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/#comment-53845 Adidas is suing me for the same thing they just sued Payless for! I guess they should change the heading of my case to ADIDAS v. ADIDAS !! see Adidas v. Michael D. Calmese District of Oregon case No. 3:08-cv-00091 Adidas is suing me for the same thing they just sued Payless for! I guess they should change the heading of my case to ADIDAS v. ADIDAS !! see Adidas v. Michael D. Calmese District of Oregon case No. 3:08-cv-00091

]]> By: Michael Nielsen » Biweekly links for 05/09/2008 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/comment-page-1/#comment-52658 Michael Nielsen » Biweekly links for 05/09/2008 Fri, 09 May 2008 10:53:16 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/#comment-52658 [...] Info/Law: Payless and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day [...] [...] Info/Law: Payless and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day [...]

]]> By: Curt Cutting http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/comment-page-1/#comment-52569 Curt Cutting Wed, 07 May 2008 17:21:20 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/#comment-52569 There may yet be an excessiveness argument under State Farm v. Campbell. The Supreme Court said in that case that when compensatory damages are "substantial," the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages should be low, perhaps no higher than one-to-one. Following that language, a number of lower court decisions have reduced large punitive damages awards down to a one-to-one ratio. In State Farm, the Supreme Court thought $1 million in compensatory damages was substantial, so the award in this case would seem to qualify. There may yet be an excessiveness argument under State Farm v. Campbell. The Supreme Court said in that case that when compensatory damages are “substantial,” the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages should be low, perhaps no higher than one-to-one. Following that language, a number of lower court decisions have reduced large punitive damages awards down to a one-to-one ratio. In State Farm, the Supreme Court thought $1 million in compensatory damages was substantial, so the award in this case would seem to qualify.

]]> By: Payless Shoes Takes a Beating from Adidas | The Deets http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/comment-page-1/#comment-52559 Payless Shoes Takes a Beating from Adidas | The Deets Wed, 07 May 2008 05:53:27 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/#comment-52559 [...] sides. Payless Shoe Stores learned that the hard way, as U of MN law professor, William McGeveran, explains on the “Info/Law” blog: The Oregonian reports that Adidas won an astronomical $305 million trademark infringement verdict [...] [...] sides. Payless Shoe Stores learned that the hard way, as U of MN law professor, William McGeveran, explains on the “Info/Law” blog: The Oregonian reports that Adidas won an astronomical $305 million trademark infringement verdict [...]

]]> By: Kyle http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/comment-page-1/#comment-52558 Kyle Wed, 07 May 2008 02:37:04 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/05/06/payless-verdict/#comment-52558 Kind of puts my Trademark final tomorrow in a whole new light... I think I'll study harder now Kind of puts my Trademark final tomorrow in a whole new light…

I think I’ll study harder now

]]>