In Maryland Cas. Co. v. Blackstone Int'l Ltd., No. 51, September Term, 2014, 2015 Md. LEXIS 286 (Md. Apr. 21, 2015), the Maryland Court of Appeals failed to address the salient policy language concluding that no potential coverage arose for “unjust enrichment” claims. Having conceded that the allegations evidenced “use of another’s advertising idea” under offense (f), the majority ignored “product packaging,” which the dissent and Intermediate Court both agreed evidenced an “advertisement.”

Judge James V. Selna of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division, entered an order on April 1, 2015 on behalf of Defendant, Armano Luxury Alloys, Inc. granting its motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to both 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117, awarding attorneys fees and costs against plaintiffs Dzinesquare, Inc. to Defendant, whom Gauntlett & Associates represented in trade dress Lanham Act, trade dress lawsuit.

Founded on April 1, 1995, the firm to date has secured judgments and settlements exceeding $200 million dollars on behalf of a range of corporate clients including over 20% of the Fortune 1000 and 10% of the Fortune 500 companies. Gauntlett & Associates specializes in insurance recovery negotiation and litigation in intellectual property, antitrust/unfair competition and business tort claims lawsuits.

Street Surfing, LLC v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 752 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2014) was published June 10, 2014.  That Order was amended on November 14, 2014, after the Panel solicited Opposition to the Petition for Rehearing of its prior ruling and permitting an amicus brief to be filed in support of that Petition.