The court affirmed the district courtвЂ™s judgment in all other respects. Because there was no likely threat of consumer confusion as to NBFPвЂ™s sale of products bearing the Ford marks to three independent used car dealers, the court reversed the district courtвЂ™s judgment finding that NBFPвЂ™s sale of these products amounted to trademark infringement, the court remanded to the district court with instructions to enter judgment for NBFP on this category of products. The court held that the district courtвЂ™s grant of partial summary judgment to Ford was affirmed. Ford cross-appealed from the district courtвЂ™s final judgment, disputing that courtвЂ™s findings on infringement, dilution, and attorneyвЂ™s fees. NBFP subsequently appealed the district courtвЂ™s partial grant of summary judgment for Ford the district courtвЂ™s final judgment holding NBFP liable for trademark infringement and the district courtвЂ™s order denying NBFPвЂ™s motion to amend its complaint. NBFP sued Ford in Texas state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that its online printing operations did not infringe FordвЂ™s trademark rights. This case arose when Ford sent a cease-and-desist letter to NBFP, demanding that NBFP pay damages and refrain from using FordвЂ™s trademarks on its websites.

Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. The court concluded that the exclusions relied upon by the insurers did not preclude coverage of LRKвЂ™s copyright infringement claim and therefore, that the insurers owed both coverage and defense under their respective policies. LRK appealed the district courtвЂ™s summary judgment ruling that Lafayette and State Farm have no duty to provide coverage, and Lafayette and State Farm appealed the district courtвЂ™s summary judgment ruling that they have a duty to defend.

Lafayette and State Farm, insurers of BryanвЂ™s Cypress Lake Development, sought declaratory judgments that, by virtue of exclusions set forth in their respective insurance policies, they have no obligation to provide coverage or duty to defend in LRKвЂ™s suit. LRK, an architect firm, brought this action for copyright infringement against a former client and his affiliated building companies (collectively, Bryan defendants). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions imposed by the district court, holding (1) all the issues Stone raised on appeal had been waived and (2) no miscarriage of justice would result from the sanctions imposed. The court granted the motion for additional sanctions.

The Does, through the attorneys ad litem, then moved the court to impose further sanctions based on StoneвЂ™s failure to comply with the first sanctions order. The district court granted the sanctions motion, finding that Stone had issued subpoenas in violation of court order, thereby grossly abusing his subpoena power. 26 and 45 by issuing subpoenas to DefendantsвЂ™ ISPs. After the case had been dismissed, Defendants, through attorneys ad litem, moved for sanctions based on StoneвЂ™s misconduct in violating Fed. The underlying case involved PlaintiffвЂ™s lawsuit alleging copyright infringement against 670 persons who allegedly unlawfully downloaded PlaintiffвЂ™s film using an online file-sharing program. Evan Stone, counsel for Plaintiff, appealed sanctions imposed on him.

Florida fifth circuit court of appeals