Dropbox inc us9/7/2023 Thru claims that it was actively negotiating with DBX about the trademark rights, but Thru's communications with DBX do not rise to the level of active negotiation that we have required to excuse such delay. Thru argues that its tardiness is excused, but the district court correctly concluded that Thru's excuses were unreasonable. Nevertheless, Thru did not commence any action against DBX until August 2015, 2 well beyond the four-year statutory limitations period applicable to California trademark infringement disputes. 1 There was no genuine dispute of fact that Thru had actual and constructive knowledge of DBX's potentially infringing activity as early as June 2009. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that laches barred Thru's counterclaims. The district court also awarded DBX more than $1.7 million in attorneys’ fees and $500,000 in costs, determining that Thru's litigation conduct transformed this case into an “exceptional case” that merited such an award. The district court concluded that Thru's counterclaims of trademark infringement were barred by laches, and, alternatively, held that DBX's rights to the “Dropbox” trademark were senior to Thru's. (“Thru”) appeals the district court's orders granting Dropbox, Inc.’s (DBX) motion for summary judgment and granting DBX's motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Black, Trial Attorney, Sarah Magen, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Ian Kenneth Boyd, Sideman & Bancroft LLP, San Francisco, CA, John Morant Cone, Attorney, Ferguson Braswell Fraser Kubasta PC, Plano, TX, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant Kramer, Esquire, Attorney, John Lawrence Slafsky, Esquire, Attorney, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-claim-defendant-Appellee Martin J. 17-15078, 17-15526 Decided: April 25, 2018īefore: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,** International Trade Judge.Ĭolleen Bal, Esquire, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC, San Francisco, CA, David H. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.ĭROPBOX, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |