On August 21, 10 US-based law professors with expertise in intellectual property law filed a joint amicus brief, explaining to the Korean court on the luxury bag maker’s suit against a repair shop in Seoul the fundamental principles that underlie the two federal appellate cases on the scope of exhaustion doctrine as applied to repair shops. Karl Storz v Fiber Tech and Karl Storz v Surgical Tech, ruling on the repair shops of endoscopes, seemed on surface to conflict with each other. Karl Storz v Surgical Tech was especially relied on by Loui Vuitton’s legal team as a statement that substantial repairs even if done at the bag owner’s request exclude the exhaustion doctrine.
Related post: The world’s most bizarre court decision: Louis Vuitton’s trademark lawsuit infringing upon consumers’ right to enjoy culture
final-amicus-for-submissionksclean
0 Comments