Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder

294 F. App'x 10
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 18, 2008
Docket07-2172
StatusUnpublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 294 F. App'x 10 (Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder, 294 F. App'x 10 (4th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Catherine Snyder appeals the district court’s order entering judgment against her on Plaintiffs trademark infringement *11 claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (2000), trademark dilution claim under 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c) (West 1998 & Supp. 2008), and under Virginia common law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder, No. l:06-ev-01356-JCC, 2007 WL 3143690 (E.D.Va. filed Oct. 23, 2007; entered Oct. 24, 2007). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

*

We note that the district court erred in holding that the Plaintiff’s registration provided Snyder with constructive notice for the purposes of the damages award. This error was harmless, however, because Plaintiff was enti-tied to elect statutory damages even if Snyder had no actual notice of the registration of Plaintiff’s mark. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116(d)(1)(B)(I), 1117(c) (2000).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
294 F. App'x 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diane-von-furstenberg-studio-v-snyder-ca4-2008.