Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Christian Louboutin, a fashion designer best known for his use of red lacquer on the outsole of the shoes he designs, appealed the district court's order denying a motion for preliminary injunction against alleged trademark infringement by Yves Saint Laurent (YSL). The court concluded that the district court's conclusion that a single color could never serve as a trademark in the fashion industry was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., and that the district court therefore erred by resting its denial of Louboutin's preliminary injunction motion on that ground. The court further concluded that Louboutin's trademark, consisting of a red, lacquered outsole on a high fashion woman's shoe, has acquired limited "secondary meaning" as a distinctive symbol that identified the Louboutin brand. Pursuant to Section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1119, the court limited the trademark to uses in which the red outsole contrasted with the color of the remainder of the shoe. Because Louboutin sought to enjoin YSL from using a red sole as part of a monochrome red shoe, the court affirmed in part the order of the district court insofar as it declined to enjoin the use of the red lacquered outsoles in all situations. However, the court reversed in part the order of the district court insofar as it purported to deny trademark protection to Louboutin's use of contrasting red lacquered outsoles. View "Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from two orders of the district court granting in part and denying in part each side's motion for summary judgment resolving the applicability of Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6), to a federal agency's decision to withhold names and duty-station information from personnel records for over 800,000 federal civilian employees. The court held that the district court correctly found that the names could be withheld, but erred insofar as it found that the agency must disclose all of the duty-station information. View "Long v. Office of Personnel Management" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law and their motion for a new trial following a jury verdict partially in favor of plaintiff on his claims regarding the misuse of a research training grant brought on behalf of the government pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and awarding principally $855,714 in treble actual damages. The court concluded that: (1) where the government had provided funds for a specified good or service only to have defendant substitute a non-conforming good or service, a court could, upon a proper finding of False Claims Act liability, calculate damages to be the full amount of the grant payments made by the government after the material false statements were made; (2) there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine that the false statements at issue were material to the government's funding decision; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of inaction on the part of the NIH in response to plaintiff's complaint regarding the fellowship program in which he had been enrolled. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States ex rel. Daniel Feldman v. Van Gorp" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order denying plaintiff's application for a turnover order pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5225(b). The court certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the appropriateness of such an order where the assets were in the direct possession not of the garnishee, but rather in the garnishee's subsidiary. View "Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Millard" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of seven offenses involving narcotics, racketeering, and firearm offenses. On appeal, defendant argued that his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial was violated by the district court's failure to grant his request to proceed pro se. The court concluded that defendant abandoned his request to represent himself, and therefore the court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his 33-year sentence after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession. Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying him a sentencing reduction under the "lawful sporting purposes" provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the proper focus of the inquiry whether a defendant was eligible for the "lawful sporting purposes" reduction was the defendant's purpose for possessing the firearm, determined by considering all relevant surrounding circumstances. By focusing exclusively on defendant's actual use of the firearms he possessed, the district court misinterpreted the Guidelines, but the court concluded that the error was harmless because the district court would have denied the reduction absent any error. View "United States v. Mason" on Justia Law

The State appealed from a decision of the district court holding that the State improperly made income tax, FICA tax, and other deductions from a Title VII judgment for back and front pay in favor of plaintiff. The court held that such Title VII awards constituted "wages" under the Internal Revenue Code and, as such, were subject to statutory withholding. View "Noel v. New York State Office of Mental Health Central New York Psychiatric Center" on Justia Law

Following the bankruptcy court's confirmation of Charter's proposed plan of reorganization, LDT, as indenture trustee for certain notes issued by CCI, and a CCI shareholder, appealed the confirmation order to the district court. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appeals as moot under the doctrine of equitable mootness. View "In re: Charter Communication" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for depraved indifference murder under New York law. The court concluded that the district court erred in denying the petition as procedurally barred, but that the merits of the underlying legal insufficiency claim turned on significant and unsettled questions of New York law, which the court certified to the New York Court of Appeals. View "Gutierrez v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction for possession of a weapon by a person previously convicted of a felony. Defendant argued, inter alia, that the district court improperly (a) excluded evidence that the Government initially discharged the other occupants of the vehicle in which he was traveling with possession of the firearm that the Government claimed was found on his person; and (b) improperly limited cross-examination of a Government witness at trial by barring defendant's use of a prior adverse credibility finding in a similar but unrelated case. The court concluded that the district court's evidentiary rulings were erroneous and that the errors were not harmless. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. White" on Justia Law