1986 ISO - Trademark Infringement
(1) General Cas Co. of Wisconsin v. Wozniak Travel, Inc.
No. 07-3515 RHK/AJB, 2008 WL 440747 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2008)
The court determined there was a split of authority between an unpublished court of appeal decision – Williamson v. N. Star Cos., No. C3-96-1139, 1997 WL 53029 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 1997), review denied (Apr. 15, 1997), and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal applying Minnesota law in Callas Enters., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 193 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. (Minn.) 1999). The court certified to the Minnesota Supreme Court the issues of:
1) Does trademark infringement fall within the scope of “misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business” or constitute “infringement of copyright, title or slogan” as set forth in the CGL policy?
2) Is a trademark an “advertising idea” or does trademark infringement constitute “infringing upon another’s copyright, trade dress or slogan” as set forth in the CUL Policy?
Id. at *6.
The court noted that the Supreme Court might re-formulate questions of law as stated. See Minn. Stat. § 480.065, subd. 6(a)(3).
The court noted that a number of decisions had failed to follow the approach of the Sixth Circuit, including state court opinions in Michigan, and was not disposed to reach an opinion inconsistent with Sixth Circuit authority absent published Minnesota state case law to support such an approach.
No. 07-3515 RHK/AJB, 2008 WL 440747 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2008)
The court determined there was a split of authority between an unpublished court of appeal decision – Williamson v. N. Star Cos., No. C3-96-1139, 1997 WL 53029 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 1997), review denied (Apr. 15, 1997), and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal applying Minnesota law in Callas Enters., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 193 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. (Minn.) 1999). The court certified to the Minnesota Supreme Court the issues of:
1) Does trademark infringement fall within the scope of “misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business” or constitute “infringement of copyright, title or slogan” as set forth in the CGL policy?
2) Is a trademark an “advertising idea” or does trademark infringement constitute “infringing upon another’s copyright, trade dress or slogan” as set forth in the CUL Policy?
Id. at *6.
The court noted that the Supreme Court might re-formulate questions of law as stated. See Minn. Stat. § 480.065, subd. 6(a)(3).
The court noted that a number of decisions had failed to follow the approach of the Sixth Circuit, including state court opinions in Michigan, and was not disposed to reach an opinion inconsistent with Sixth Circuit authority absent published Minnesota state case law to support such an approach.
