Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 SEPTEMBER 2013

Kate Spade Saturday Does Not Infringe Saturdays Surf

Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Contributor
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP

Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP

Carter Ledyard & Milburn is a general practice law firm headquartered in the Financial District....

View firm profile
Explore more from Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Kate Spade's mark did not infringe SATURDAYS SURF NYC or any other SATURDAY-formative mark claimed by Saturdays Surf.

United StatesIntellectual Property
Rose Auslander
Rose Auslander
Anup Khatri
Anup Khatri

In Kate Spade LLC v. Saturdays Surf LLC, Kate Spade sued Saturdays Surf for a declaratory judgment that the mark KATE SPADE SATURDAY did not infringe the mark SATURDAYS SURF NYC or any other SATURDAY-related mark claimed by Saturdays Surf. Saturdays Surf counterclaimed for trademark infringement.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Kate Spade's mark did not infringe SATURDAYS SURF NYC or any other SATURDAY-formative mark claimed by Saturdays Surf. As there was no finding of infringement on the counterclaims, the court stated that the "declaratory judgment sought by Kate Spade [was] unnecessary." It also dismissed all of the counterclaims brought by Saturdays Surf. Kate Spade LLC v. Saturdays Surf LLC, No. 12 Civ. 9260 (MGC) (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2013).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Sheppard
Sheppard
Article

Rule 15a-6 Of The Securities Exchange Act: A Guide For Foreign Broker-dealers

SEC Rule 15a-6 creates a framework allowing non-U.S. broker-dealers to engage with American institutional investors and conduct certain securities activities without full SEC registration. The rule establishes specific exemptions and requirements, including the use of chaperoning broker-dealers, while balancing market access with regulatory oversight. Understanding these provisions is essential for foreign broker-dealers seeking compliant pathways to U.S. capital markets.
United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Article

New York’s Data Center Moratorium: A Practical Roadmap Through The One-Year Pause

New York has become the first U.S. state to implement a statewide moratorium on major data center development, halting discretionary environmental permits for facilities of 50-megawatts or more for one year. Governor Hochul's Executive Order #62 directs state agencies to study and establish new regulatory frameworks addressing environmental impacts, utility costs, and community benefits, while exempting projects with permits deemed complete before July 14, 2026.
United StatesEnvironment
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Article

Schedule 13D and 13G: Elon Musk Saga Ends, and SEC Clarifies Rules

Recent SEC enforcement activity and new interpretive guidance highlight the agency's continued emphasis on beneficial ownership reporting under Schedules 13D and 13G. The settlement of the Elon Musk Twitter acquisition case, resulting in a $1.5 million penalty, demonstrates the SEC's focus on timely disclosure requirements. Updated Corporation Finance Interpretations clarify how derivatives and total return swaps may trigger reporting obligations when used to obscure voting influence.
United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP