Posts Tagged: "trademark infringement"

Alibaba alleges that defendant Alibabacoin (ABBC) Foundation has engaged in an unlawful scheme to misappropriate the Alibaba name in order to raise over $3.5 million in cryptoassets from investors. The complaint alleges that scheme was a part of an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) that is neither registered nor approved by U.S.

Dallas, TX-based online dating app developer Match Group filed a suit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims of utility and design patent infringement, trademark infringement, and trade secret misappropriation against Austin, TX-based dating app provider Bumble. Match alleges that Bumble, which was founded by former employees of Match’s Tinder dating service, copied major elements of the interface from Match’s app including swiping elements used to identify potential matches.

On February 20th, Clearwater Beach, FL-based restaurateur Frenchy’s Corporate filed a suit alleging trademark infringement against the owners and operators of Frenchy’s Pizzeria & Tavern, located less than an hour’s drive away from Clearwater in Port Richey, FL. The suit, filed in the Middle District of Florida, aims to protect Frenchy’s Corporate trademark rights to the unregistered trademark “FRENCHY’STM” under…

A resounding en garde was declared by California craft beer brand Stone to MillerCoors, the second largest beer company in the United States, over the alleged taking of their brand recognition. On February 12, 2018 Stone Brewing filed a federal complaint alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and California unfair competition. The complaint requests preliminary and permanent injunction, declaratory relief, and both actual and treble damages on the basis of willful trademark infringement by MillerCoors… A particularly interesting factor in this case is likelihood of irreparable harm. MillerCoors may find room for defensive maneuvers due to recent shifts in the standard for proving irreparable harm.

Colgate-Palmolive (NYSE:CL) filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement in the Southern District of New York against Grand Rapids, MI-based oral healthcare company Ranir LLC. At issue in the case are toothbrushes being sold by Ranir which allegedly infringe upon the “360°” trademark, which is owned by Colgate… Since releasing the 360° branded line of toothbrushes and oral care products, Colgate has pursued federal trademark registrations to cover the use of the brand in commerce.

Grammy Award winning funk, soul band The Commodores—whose hit singles include Easy and Brick House—recently won a trademark infringement lawsuit against its ex-bandmate and founding member Thomas McClary, who left the band in 1984. The right to use The Commodores’ name and trademarks belongs to a company run by founding members William King and Walter Orange, a Florida appellate court has ruled.

The overlap between sovereign immunity and IP issues is not something that comes up all of the time. However, when it does, the impact of the immunity can be significant. The law for certain matters, such as lawsuits in Federal court, is fairly well resolved. However, its application when new procedures are made available, such as for IPRs which were established in 2012, has provided new challenges and opportunities… So can the Federal or State government be sued for infringement under Federal patent, trademark, or copyright law? The answer often depends on the particular facts and specific legal issues of a dispute. That said, in most cases the answer is Yes for the U.S. Government and No for states and Tribal Nations, unless they have taken a specific action to waive immunity for that matter. A brief summary follows.

A jury awarded $710,000 in damages for trademark and copyright infringement to Grumpy Cat Limited, the entity holding the rights to the Internet cat celebrity Grumpy Cat. The lawsuit targeted the sale of unlicensed coffee beverages marketed under the Grumpy Cat name by a Los Angeles-area beverage company.

After a bench trial, United States Federal District Court Judge Stefan Underhill ordered Voss Laundry Solutions to pay more than $1 million in attorney fees, attorney costs and penalties to its former German parent. The defendant had at one time been a subsidiary of the plaintiff. After the two companies split, the defendant Voss Laundry continued to use the Lavatec name. Interestingly, the vast majority of the $1 million award comes from attorneys fees.

A jury in the Southern District of California entered a special verdict form in a trademark case playing out between a couple of American pop culture conventions. The verdict shows that the jury found in favor of plaintiff San Diego Comic Convention against a group of defendants using the “COMIC-CON” mark to publicize a similar event organized in recent years in Salt Lake City, UT. The verdict also awards $20,000 in corrective advertising damages to San Diego Comic Convention for defendants’ infringement of multiple trademarks held by the San Diego event organization.

One of the interesting theories posed by the case is Character for Hire’s claimed right to use Disney characters, which derive from Norse mythology or centuries-old fairy tales. In its response to Disney’s motion for summary judgment, Characters for Hire argues that many of the Plaintiffs’ copyrights are based on prior works that have been in the public domain for hundreds of years such as Cinderella, Snow White, Rapunzel, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Princess Aurora, Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid, Thor and Loki. “It will be interesting to see how the Court delineates between established fairy tale characters and the original expression added to them by Disney,” Furey said.

Looking at the types of damages being awarded in trademark cases and how they’re being awarded, it’s highly likely that most damages awarded in these cases might never be recovered. “You can see it as two separate worlds of trademark cases,” Howard said. “There are cases in which a defendant doesn’t show up and it goes straight to default judgment, and then there’s everything else.” $4.6 billion dollars, or 84.6 percent of all damages awarded in district court trademark cases going back to 2009, have been awarded on default judgment.

At issue in the trademark infringement suit is Amazon’s sale of counterfeit wheel center caps bearing distinctive Mercedes-Benz trademarks… Daimler argues that Amazon “facilitates the sale of an exorbitant number of counterfeit and infringing goods” through its platform, counterfeit activity which has increased since 2015 when the company began inducing Chinese manufacturers to list on its U.S. and European e-commerce platforms. Daimler notes that lawsuits over counterfeit products have been filed against Amazon by well-known consumer brands including a February 2017 suit filed by French luxury goods brand Chanel against the American e-commerce giant.

Characters for Hire also argued that the trademark infringement claims lacked the essential element of confusion. Citing to Naked Cowboy v. CBS, a case decided in Southern New York in 2012 involving trademark infringement claims asserted by a Times Square street performer against the use of his likeness in the soap opera The Bold and the Beautiful, Characters for Hire argue that the use of the names of fictional persons are merely descriptive of the entertainment services provided by the defendants. “Indeed, Plaintiff Disney is well aware of the limits of trademark enforceability having successfully defended a claim brought against them for using the famous ‘Caterpillar’ trademark for construction trucks in one of their films,” Characters for Hire argued. This statement references Caterpillar Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., a 2003 case decided in the Central District of Illinois wherein the court ruled that Disney’s use of construction vehicles with Caterpillar logos in the movie George of the Jungle 2 created no likelihood of confusion that Caterpillar either endorsed or sponsored the movie.

Smashburger asserts that In-N-Out stopped using the Triple Triple mark and thus, abandoned its rights, when the triple meat, triple cheese hamburger was rebranded as the 3X3 hamburger over three years ago, the generally understood benchmark for abandonment of rights. And, in my research of In-N-Out’s archived web pages, as far back as 2012, In-N-Out appears to have done exactly what Smashburger asserts – it replaced the Triple Triple hamburger from its Not-So-Secret Menu with the 3X3 hamburger. Magically, references to the Triple Triple mark reappear on its Not-So-Secret Menu in early September of 2017, right after Smashburger sought to cancel In-N-Out’s Triple Triple registration. This leapfrogging of rights may be the saving grace to Smashburger’s rights in its Triple Double mark.