Mr. Sarabia has 30 years of experience in the following areas:
LICENSING: revenue projections, forecasts, standards, performance, breach, selection of licensees, damages;
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: analysis, due diligence, investigations;
COPYRIGHTS: substantial similarity, originality;
TRADEMARKS: secondary meaning, infringement, dilution, searches, investigations, due diligence, theft, trade dress, counterfeiting, rebuttal on damages;
APPAREL BUSINESS: contracts, manufacturing (local, abroad), import, export, sales, distribution, apparel copyrights, substantial similarity of apparel lines, theft and protection of designs, rebuttal on damages;
DESIGN PATENTS: defenses based on lack on originality, identify and analyze obviousness and prior art;
STANDARDS OF PRACTICE OF APPAREL BUSINESS LAWYERS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYERS AND LICENSING LAWYERS
Litigators often reach for doctrines such as res judicata or collateral estoppel to narrow the scope of a case. Res judicata prevents re-litigation of the same claim that was litigated in a prior case. Collateral estoppel prevents re-litigation of the same issue that was decided in a prior case.
EIGHT YEARS AGO Congress decided that the existing means for awarding damages for trademark infringement were not deterring this illegal practice and decided to supplement these measures with statutory damages-a specific range that a court could award even in the absence of proof of a plaintiff's losses or the defendant's profits.
In the last 10 years, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided two cases involving naked licensing: Barcamerica International v. Tyfield Importers (9th Cir. 2002) 289 F.3d 589, and Freecyclesunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 509.
Eight years ago Congress decided that the existing measures of damages for trademark infringement were not deterring trademark infringement. It decided to supplement these measures with statutory damages - a specific range of damages which a court could award even in the absence of proof about plaintiff's losses or defendant's profits.
The Hewlett Packard pretexting scandal received widespread publicity. There were two main legal aspects. First, there is the criminal case filed against Ms. Patricia Dunn· (former Chairperson of the Board), a senior Hewlett Packard lawyer and several private investigators.
The Hewlett Packard pretexting scandal received widespread publicity. While a criminal case is pending and there may be spin off litigation, the deal Hewlett Packard made with the California Attorney General is inked and done.
