Gerald Sauer quoted in Harvard Journal of Law and Technology article on trade dress infringement

Harvard Journal of Law and Technology quoted Gerald Sauer in its article, “In-N-Out Claims Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement over Puma’s ‘Drive Thru’ Shoes.”

Gerald Sauer on Law360 explains, “Puma is a different animal. It has deep pockets and could, if it chose to, fight the fight.”

Sauer continues that “[t]rade dress registration is based on an applicant’s claim that the ‘total image’ of its good or services is distinctive to that company,” and points out that Puma might be able to fight In-N-Out over the trade dress issue and argue “that there is no likelihood of confusion between lace-up sneakers and ‘Double-Double’ burgers.” Barring settlement, Sauer concludes that this case might lead to courts providing guidance on “intent” in trademark and trade dress law.

Read full story at Harvard Journal of Law and Technology

Employment arbitration agreements: Sonya Goodwin’s article in Hunton

California Legislators Take Another Stab At Preventing Employment Arbitration Agreements

By Sonya Goodwin & Emily Burkhardt Vicente on April 3, 2019

California has long been considered one of the most – if not the most – protective states of employee rights.  This continues to ring true, as the legislature has proposed another law aimed at prohibiting employers from requiring employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.   In essence, Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), would prevent employers from requiring their employees to bring all employment related claims, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage and hour claims, in arbitration instead of state or federal court.

If passed, AB 51 also would prohibit employers from threatening, retaliating against, discriminating against, or terminating an employee or refusing to hire a prospective employee who refuses to sign an arbitration agreement.  While the law does provide that employees may voluntarily consent to enter into an arbitration agreement, arbitration agreements with “opt-out” provisions or any provision that requires the employee to take affirmative action to avoid waiving his/her right to civil court would also be prohibited under AB 51.   If passed, any violation of this law would constitute an unlawful employment practice under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.   The proposed bill also allows for injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff.

Read the rest at Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives