Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Swatch is the owner of three U.S. registrations for the mark SWATCH and for materials bearing that mark. Beehive produces and sells watch bands and faces under the mark SWAP. On appeal, Swatch challenged the district court's denial of its opposition to Beehive's trademark application and dismissal of its related claims for federal, state, and common law trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. The district court held that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB) determinations were supported by substantial evidence; found facts based on evidence not presented to the TTAB under its authority under 15 U.S.C. 1071(b)(3); concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks and likelihood that SWAP would dilute SWATCH; dismissed Swatch's infringement and unfair competition claims as a matter of law; and concluded that Beehive's mark was registrable because it was not merely descriptive. The court concluded that the district court properly reviewed Swatch's dilution-by-blurring claim entirely de novo; the district court also decided Swatch's trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, which were not before the TTAB, de novo; and, although the district court stated that it would apply an impermissible hybrid review to its likelihood of confusion and strength-of-the-mark analyses, there were more than sufficient facts recited in its opinion to support its findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of the issuance and form of automated speeding citations issued under Maryland's speed camera program. The court found that the notice and hearing afforded by Maryland's speed camera statute satisfied due process where notice sent by first-class mail was reasonably calculated to provide actual notice of the speeding violation and civil penalties; the availability of a trial in state court, upon plaintiffs' election, provided adequate opportunity to be heard on any objections prior to the imposition of the statutory penalties; and any flaws in the citation or enforcement process could have been challenged in the state courts and plaintiffs failed to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the towns. View "Snider Int'l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, MD" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Hoschar, filed suit in West Virginia state court against APCO and ICI, seeking damages for an infectious lung disease called histoplasmosis that Mr. Hoschar allegedly contracted while working as a boilermaker at one of APCO's coal-fired power plants. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's denial of their motion to remand the case to state court and the district court's grant of APCO's motion for summary judgment in favor of APCO. The court concluded that APCO has carried its burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction because the record amply demonstrated that the location where APCO's officers direct, control, and coordinate APCO's activities was Columbus, Ohio. The court held that APCO did not have actual or constructive knowledge of a potential histoplasmosis risk, and therefore, APCO did not owe Mr. Hoschar a duty to guard against it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of APCO. View "Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Elk Run, alleging that the company committed fraud on the court and therefore deprived her coal miner husband of nearly a decade of benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 30 U.S.C. 901-945. Plaintiff contended that Elk Run had committed fraud on the court because it had not disclosed certain expert reports to its expert pulmonologists. The court affirmed the Board's finding that Elk Run's conduct was not sufficiently egregious to meet the high bar for a claim of fraud on the court because it did not amount to an intentional design aimed at undermining the integrity of the adjudicative process. The court found that Elk Run's conduct did not, under Supreme Court and circuit precedent, demonstrate the commission of a fraud upon the court. View "Fox v. Elk Run Coal Co., Inc." on Justia Law