• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Fross Zelnick

  • People
  • Focus
  • Services

    Find Your Lawyer

    Craig S. MendeAshford TuckerBarbara A. SolomonCara A. BoyleAndrew NietesCharles T.J. Weigell, IIIRobin N. BaydurcanAndrew N. FredbeckRichard Z. LehvCole S. MathewsJames D. WeinbergerJason D. JonesJohn P. MargiottaKimberly B. FrumkinKatherine Lyon DaytonAdrian E. Harrison Jr.Karen LimSara GoldmanDavid A. DonahueRobin L. WarrenLaura Popp-RosenbergCarlos CucurellaLydia T. GobenaJanet L. HoffmanLeo KittayNadine H. JacobsonJames D. SilbersteinMary StotteleAlexandra E. KochianChristina SauerbornAlejandra Camacho LunaShelby P. RokitoRobert A. BeckerJennifer GibbinsTodd MartinDaniel M. NuzzaciLawrence Eli ApolzonNancy DiConzaTamar Niv BessingerAmanda B. AgatiNicole LiebermanAlexandra LenczewskiMaritza C. SchaefferAllison Strickland RickettsJoyce M. FerraroAngela García MedinaNancy E. SabarraBrian LearySherri N. Duitz
    • A
    • B
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • H
    • I
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • P
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • T
    • u
    • v
    • w
    • x
    • y
    • z
    • View All
ShareBookmarkPrintPDF

July 31, 2007

Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp.

No. 05-35811, 2007 WL 2193541 (9th Cir. July 31, 2007); 384 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2004)

The firm successfully concluded its representation of Timex Corporation in its defense against copyright and trademark infringement claims brought against it by Polar Bear Productions, Inc. In 2002, when our firm first became involved in the case, Polar Bear had been awarded a $2.415 million jury verdict for Timex’s copyright infringement of a kayaking video entitled “PaddleQuest.” We took over the appeal, and, in 2004, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entire $2.1 million award under Section 504(b) of the Copyright Act of Timex’s profits allegedly attributable to the copyright infringement as unduly speculative and cut the damage award from $315,000 to $115,000 on the same grounds. The case was then remanded to the district court on Polar Bear’s remaining trademark claims. Upon Timex’s motion, the court dismissed all of Polar Bear’s remaining trademark claims, and Polar Bear appealed the dismissal of its claims to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion dated July 21, 2007, affirmed final dismissal of the case.

View Related Document

Primary Sidebar

Related

People

  • John P. Margiotta

    Partner

Focus

  • Jewelry & Watches

Services

  • Copyright
  • Litigation
  • Sitemap
© 2023 Fross Zelnick
  • Fross Zelnick and FZ are registered trademarks of Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Legal & Privacy
  • Connect with us on LinkedIn
  • Contact

Stay Connected

  • People
  • Focus
    • Celebrities, Bands & Athletes
    • Consumer Products
    • Entertainment Properties
    • Fashion
    • Startup & Emerging Growth
    • Food & Beverage
    • Hospitality & Hotels
    • Jewelry & Watches
    • Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)
    • Personal Care & Cosmetics
    • Pharmaceuticals
    • Professional Services
    • Publishing
    • Sports
    • Toys
  • Services
    • Trademark
    • Copyright
    • Design
    • Litigation
    • Transactions
    • Publicity & Privacy
    • Social Media & Domain Names
  • Decisions
  • Newsroom
  • Our Firm
    • About Our Firm
    • Careers
    • Contact
    • Recognition
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Web TMS