Oliver Ruiz

Oliver Ruiz

Oliver A. Ruiz is a partner with the firm, and represents clients and insurers in intellectual property disputes and litigation matters, as well as, in transactional matters, such as applications for trademark and copyright registrations. He has been rated as AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell. Mr. Ruiz is admitted to practice law in Florida and North Carolina state courts, as well as, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He also represents clients in U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings. 

He is a Past President of the Federal Bar Association's South Florida Chapter; and is active with other voluntary bar associations, such as the Dade County Bar Association and the Cuban-American Bar Association. Mr. Ruiz is also active with civic and service organizations, including the Rotary Club of Miami, where he proudly served as the Club's 100th President during its centennial year. Oliver earned a bachelor’s degree from Florida State University, and a law degree from St. Thomas University School of Law, where he was as a board member for the Moot Court Board, and President of the Student Bar Association. He is a native of Miami, and is fluent in Spanish.

It was a historic day for the Supreme Court of the United States, as the high court conducted oral arguments that were broadcasted in a live audio stream for the first time in its history. The format for the argument was also unique, with the Justices asking questions in order of seniority.

The first case to be argued was a trademark case, involving an appeal of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office’s refusal to register BOOKING.COM, based on the PTO’s position that it is a generic term for hotel reservation services and other related services, such that is incapable of functioning as a trademark. The Applicant appealed the PTO’s decision to a federal court, which ruled in its favor, finding BOOKING.COM to be a registrable (and thus enforceable) trademark. The decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s ruling and held that it did not commit error when it found that the PTO “failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the relevant public understood BOOKING.COM, taken as a whole, to refer to general online hotel reservation services rather than Booking.com the company,” i.e., as a source-identifying trademark.

The audio of the Supreme Court argument can be found here:  https://cs.pn/2SI6DJE. The decision on appeal, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, can be found here:  http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/172458.P.pdf.

The standard for willful patent infringement will be reviewed this term by the Supreme Court of the United States, as reported by SCOTUSblog. The Court agreed to accept two cases that involve the issue of enchanced damages in patent infringement litigation, Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, and Stryker Corp v. Zimmer. Under the Patent Act, the owner of a patent may seek triple damages where willful infringement has been proven. The Supreme Court is expected to consider the proper framework for determining whether infringement in a particular case is willful. A decision in these consolidated cases will be rendered by June 2016. 

Wednesday, 02 October 2013 14:04

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Three I.P. Cases

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review three intellectual property cases. Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog reported that “[t]he Tuesday grants represent a strong focus on issues related to intellectual property law.” The Court granted petitions to review two patent cases and one copyright case during the upcoming term. The two patent cases both concern standards for awards of fees in patent litigation, and the copyright case pertains to the timeliness of the action.

The arrival of a new month has brought with it another slew of lawsuits filed by ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies in the Southern District of Florida, asserting patent infringement against a host of business entities. 

Monday, 01 November 2010 20:42

"FANTASY FEST" IN FEDERAL COURT

The Key West Tourism Development Association ("TDA") recently filed a lawsuit alleging intellectual property violations stemming from alleged unauthorized use of the mark "FANTASY FEST" by Zazzle, Inc., a California business entity.  Zazzle is the owner of the web site, zazzle.com, which according to the complaint, offers "blank" products such as t-shirts and coffee mugs that can be customized by consumers.  TDA argues that, in so doing, Zazzle facilitates and benefits from the creation of counterfeit items.  In its Complaint, TDA takes issue with Zazzle's use of meta tags, and the offering of products which feature the marks "FANTASY FEST," and "HABITAT FOR INSANITY," this year's festival theme. 

You may remember the character Dan Tanna from Vega$,

but you may not know that the character's name was based on the name of a West Hollywood, California restaurant owner named Dan Tana (used with his permission), whose restaurant, "Dan Tana's," appears below:

A local author named Cynthia J. Clay recently filed a copyright infringement lawsuit alleging that the motion picture Avatar infringes her novel, entitled Zollocco: A Novel of Another Universe.  The complaint, which was filed in the Southern District of Florida federal court, alleges instances of "strikingly similar" copying of portions of the novel, and claims that the name of the novel, Zollocco, was used as a war chant by principal characters in a critical scene in the movie (allegedly "Zha-lah-coooh"). 

The Defendants in the lawsuit include James Cameron and Twentieth Century Fox.  As with any lawsuit alleging copyright infringement, the issues to be determined will include: (1) the Defendants' access to the novel; and (2) the degree of similarity between the accused work and the copyrighted work ("substantial similarity" if access can be proven, otherwise the alleged infringing work must be "strikingly similar").  

Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court granted a request by Costco, the wholesale retailer, to review a federal appellate decision involving the first-sale doctrine under copyright law, in connection with the purchase and resale by Costco of Omega brand watches that were purchased on the gray-market (also known as parallel imports).  In general, the first-sale doctrine allows the owner of a particular copy of a copyrighted work which was "lawfully made" to resell that copy without permission from the copyright holder. 

A Bradenton, Florida company has sued Cup Solutions, Inc., an online seller of cups used for mixing drinks with shots of hard liquor, alleging that the Defendant's "YAAGBOMB" cups, pictured below, infringe a patent owned by Hurricane Shooters, LLC, the Plaintiff. 

A Fort Lauderdale company that claims ownership of trademark rights for the term "MEANAGER" in connection with clothing has sued Urban Dictionary, an online dictionary of slang words and phrases, and another Defendant, for allegedly selling competing goods that use the term "MEANAGER".   The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and is pending before Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno. 

The complaint alleges that Urban Dictionary is infringing the Florida company's trademark by using the term "MEANAGER" on articles that it sells through its website.  According to the complaint, Urban Dictionary sells articles that feature the slang words and phrases that appear on its website, and takes issue with the sale of articles bearing the term "MEANAGER".  The term has three definitions on the web site, one as a slang phrase for a mean boss, i.e. a "MEANAGER" (as a play on words for Manager); and the other two relating to teenagers that exhibit hurtful behavior (a play on words for the terms Mean and Teenager).  According to Wikipedia, another online dictionary, Urban Dictionary currently has 4.79 million definitions on its website. 

The Florida company alleges that it has promoted its mark through websites such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and LinkedIn.  With the ever increasing amount of business that is done through the internet, it is no surprise that cases such as these are being filed a more rapid rate.

Page 1 of 2