Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  2528-2534 displayed

1  361 362 363 364 365  3627

---

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, L.L.P.

Owens Corning in $640 Million Saint-Gobain Acquisition
Cleary Gottlieb is representing longtime client Owens Corning in its $640 million acquisition of Saint-Gobain's worldwide reinforcement and composites business. The acquisition agreements were signed on July 26, replacing an existing joint venture agreement between the parties. The deal is expected to close by the end of 2007, pending regulatory approval.

We are also advising Owens Corning on the divestment of facilities in Battice, Belgium, and Birkeland, Norway to address European regulatory concern over the Saint-Gobain acquisition. Saint-Gobain’s reinforcement and composites business has operations in Europe, North and South America, and Asia, with approximately 4,500 employees.

Owens Corning is a leading innovator of glass fiber technology with sales of $6.5 billion in 2006 and 19,000 employees worldwide. Saint-Gobain operates in 54 countries worldwide, and is one of the world’s leading industrial corporations.

07-26-2007

---

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, L.L.P.

Copper Tube Manufacturers Win Dismissal of Class Action Claim
Cleary Gottlieb represented two copper tube manufacturers that won dismissal of a direct purchaser class action on July 26. Cleary Gottlieb represented Europa Metalli and Tréfimétaux while co-counsel represented other defendants, including Outokumpu, Mueller Industries, and Wieland Metals. Basing its allegations on the European Commission’s finding that the companies participated in an air conditioning and refrigeration (ACR) systems cartel affecting Europe, the complaint alleged that defendants colluded to raise the price of ACR copper tubes in the United States. Judge Bernice Donald, United States district court for the Western District of Tennessee, dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

Judge Donald found the claims "hollow," "wholly insubstantial," and too speculative to proceed, stating that "[p]laintiffs seem to have relied entirely on facts from the EC decisions peppered with language from the Sherman and Clayton acts and conclusory statements about a price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S." She added: "In so doing, Plaintiffs have crafted a complaint with only the appearance of legitimacy. … Plaintiffs have simply ‘cut-and-pasted’ into their complaint the collusive activities found by the EC to have taken place in Europe and tacked on ‘in the United States and elsewhere.’" Thus, Judge Donald stated "Plaintiffs’ complaint is essentially a work of fiction" and allowing the case to continue "would be unjust and a gross abuse of the judicial system."

07-26-2007

---

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, L.L.P.

Chinese Online Game Company in $217 Million IPO
Cleary Gottlieb represented the underwriters in Perfect World Co., Ltd.’s $217 million SEC-registered initial public offering. Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse were joint book-running managers for the offering, and CIBC World Markets and Susquehanna Financial Group, LLP were co-managers. The ADRs began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market on July 26.

Perfect World, based in Beijing, China, is a leading online game developer and operator.

07-26-2007

---

Perkins Coie LLP

Perkins Coie Appoints New Director of Electronic Discovery
In recognition of the increasing importance of electronic discovery issues in litigation, Perkins Coie announced the appointment of its first Director of Electronic Discovery Services, Christopher M. Schultz.
Schultz, who has been with Perkins Coie since 1999, is a member of the firm's national Commercial Litigation practice. He regularly consults with firm clients (from FORTUNE 50 corporations to emerging businesses) on the legal and technical issues surrounding electronic discovery—including devising and implementing document retention procedures, identifying technical solutions for collecting and processing electronic data, and coordinating the review and production of that data.

"We are thrilled that Chris has accepted this position," said Tom Boeder, chair of the firm's national Commercial Litigation practice. "He has extensive experience addressing electronic discovery challenges, which is crucial in coordinating the firm's efforts to provide world-class legal advice to our clients on the increasingly complex and important issues of litigation discovery relating to electronic information."

For the past decade, Perkins Coie has been a leader in providing innovative electronic discovery services to its clients. The firm's electronic discovery team has successfully managed multiple electronic document reviews involving everything from tens of thousands to tens of millions of documents.

"As the recent changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the discovery of electronically stored information continue to be worked out in the courts, it is vital that clients understand how that information should be managed, collected, and ultimately used in litigation," said Schultz. "As the firm’s new Director of Electronic Discovery Services, it is my goal to work both with my colleagues and directly with our clients to provide them with sound advice in this increasingly complex area of the law."

07-26-2007

---

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Alice Springer Joins Firm's South Bend Office
Alice J. Springer has joined Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s South Bend office as an associate in the firm’s Litigation Department.

Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Springer graduated with highest distinction from Purdue University in 2001 with a B.A. in communications. While at Purdue, she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She received her J.D. from Valparaiso University School of Law in 2004, graduating magna cum laude. During law school she was an associate editor of the Valparaiso University Law Review.

Upon graduation, Ms. Springer served as law clerk to the Honorable Christopher A. Nuechterlein, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.

Ms. Springer is a member of the Indiana State Bar Association. She is admitted to practice in Indiana and the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana.

07-26-2007

---

Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP

Federal Judge Rejects Argument That Trade Dress and Trademark Are Same in Doodle Pro Toy Case
A federal judge has rejected the argument that trade dress and trademarks are the same thing in a closely-watched case won by the intellectual property law firm Kenyon & Kenyon for clients Mattel, Inc. and its subsidiary, Fisher-Price.

The case, Pilot Corporation of America v. Fisher-Price, Inc., was decided July 24th by Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, who granted Fisher-Price’s motion for summary judgment regarding claims for trademark and trade dress infringement as well as a federal unfair competition claim.

The dispute involved the sale of a popular drawing toy under the name and mark DOODLE PRO. “This is an unusual trademark and trade dress infringement case,� Judge Underhill wrote in his 33-page decision that resolved a complex dispute over the product’s ownership.

For many years, Fisher-Price had sold a similar toy under the mark MagnaDoodle. Although the toy was created by Fisher-Price, and Fisher-Price owned the rights in the toy design and packaging, the mark MagnaDoodle was licensed from Pilot. When the license expired, Fisher-Price ceased using the name MagnaDoodle, and rebranded its toy as DOODLE PRO.

When the two companies severed their licensing agreement in December 2003, Pilot reasserted control over the MagnaDoodle mark and licensed it to The Ohio Art Company in May 2004.

Fisher-Price continued to make and sell its toy design, but under a new name and mark - DOODLE PRO, but Pilot claimed that it owned the rights in the toy and the packaging, not just in the trademark.

Edward T. Colbert, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Kenyon & Kenyon and lead trial counsel for Fisher-Price and Mattel, praised the court’s ruling and was particularly pleased with Court language that said Pilot had “failed to submit any evidence" that it owned the toy and packaging design, and rejected the argument that Pilot acquired rights in the trade dress of the toy, just because its mark was used on the trade dress.

Fisher-Price created a very pleasing, attractive and successful toy, without any input from

Pilot.� Colbert said. “We are pleased that the court saw through the argument that all those

rights just automatically belonged to the trademark owner. Pilot’s argument that it is unnecessary to spell out the relative rights of the parties in a business contract was soundly rejected.

Colbert summed up the impact of the case this way: “Any other result could have caused chaos and led to endless litigation over imagined rights.�
The court also rejected Pilot’s argument that Fisher-Price's new trademark, DOODLE PRO, was so similar to the mark MagnaDoodle, that it was likely to confuse the consuming public.

But the Court also rejected this argument, holding that, after reviewing all the evidence submitted by Pilot, that "[Pilot] has not presented evidence from which a jury could find a likelihood of confusion between the parties' trademarks."

“The court made it very clear that the 'issue of confusion in this case relates only to the marks on the two products, not the trade dress'," Colbert said. He added that �the usual right of a trademark owner to approve the product on which its mark is used, does not implicitly convey ownership in the product or its look or its packaging - as Pilot argued."

Another important holding in this case, according to Colbert, was the deference given by the Court to the findings of the US Patent and Trademark Office. “The Court emphasized that it gave 'great weight' to the fact that, in allowing the DOODLE PRO mark to be registered, the USPTO had already determined that the DOODLE PRO mark was ‘not likely to cause confusion’ with Pilot's MagnaDoodle mark."

Richard S. Gresalfi, managing partner of Kenyon & Kenyon, noted that It was the second time in less than three months that the firm won a major case for Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price. In May 2007, the law firm prevailed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the first application of the obviousness standard that was broadened by the U.S. Supreme in a major patent decision.

07-26-2007

---

25383 matches |  2528-2534 displayed

1  361 362 363 364 365  3627