Posts Tagged: "trademark"

In the complaint, Willie Gary and his team claim that HP and Palm’s infringing use of the name Chubby Checker in relation to its software application is likely to cause confusion or mistake in the minds of the artist’s long-time fans and supporters, such that it would do damage to the brand and Mr. Evans’ businesses. Additionally, if the infringement is allowed to continue, it will permit HP and Palm to benefit from profits to which they are not entitled.

2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, recently issued an unsigned opinion finding that the USPA could, in fact, be banned from using a double horseman logo on its fragrances or cosmetics on the basis that the logo was too similar to trademarks currently owned by Ralph Lauren

In its complaint, UA stated that Nike started an ad campaign in the latter months of 2012 that misappropriated UA’s trademark by pretty much making the phrase “I WILL” the focal point of its ads on its FACEBOOK and YouTube video pages, as well as on nike.com. In particular, Nike has used video footage in its ads that has the catch phrase superimposed throughout the video in big bold letters. UA argues that Nike was well aware of its ongoing, long-term use of the “I WILL” trademark (much in the same way that most people in the industry know that Nike is well known for its phrase “JUST DO IT”) and suggests that Nike’s use of “I WILL” not only does harm to UA but to the public as well because customers currently associate the phrase with UA.

Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Play Beverages, LLC, et al., U.S. District Judge S. James Otero has granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on the basis of improper venue.

The dispute between Tiffany and Costco first came to light in November 2012 when a customer alerted Tiffany to the sale of what was promoted on in-store signs as “Tiffany” diamond engagement rings at a Costco store in Huntington Beach, California. Tiffany immediately launched an investigation, and later learned that for many years, and without Tiffany’s knowledge, Costco had apparently been selling different styles of rings that it has falsely identified on in-store signage as “Tiffany.” The rings are not in fact Tiffany rings, nor are they manufactured by, approved by, licensed by, or otherwise in any way properly associated with Tiffany.

Recently Inc.com published an article titled The Art and Science of Corporate Icons, which discusses Skeeter the squirrel, who is apparently the only squirrel in the world allergic to nuts. Skeeter is also the cartoon mascot for Skeeter Snacks, a line of nut-free cookies created by Dave Leyrer and Pete Najarian, whose target audience is parents with children who have allergies to nuts. The Inc.com article, discussed the creation of Skeeter from the drawing board to the finished product, including what aspects of this critter they wanted to depict their brand. They wanted the product to not only be affordable and appealing to kids but also to show that they were “…more playful than other allergen-free brands.”

But this article is less concerned with actual imperialism, and more with cultural imperialism –particularly the “invasion” of this country by that once all-American, but now global, fast-food chain known variously in its land of origin as McDonald’s, the Golden Arches and Mickey-D’s. Here in Australia, however, McDonald’s most prevalent nickname is “Macca’s”. A recent branding survey commissioned by McDonald’s Australia found that 55 per cent of Australians refer to the company by its local slang name. But the temporary Macca’s rebranding also raises some interesting trademark issues.

East Carolina University, also known as ECU, has filed a lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc., a huge multination communication company. Why take on a networking and communication giant? Because Cisco has been using the phrase “Tomorrow Starts Here” in their newest marketing campaign – a phrase that ECU has been using for over a decade, and has already federally trademarked.

The Batmobile namesake owners are doing battle over replicas of this very car. DC Comics, a subsidiary of Warner Bros., is pushing a lawsuit against California custom paint and auto body shop, Gotham Garage. Owned and operated by Mark Towle of Santa Ana. Gotham Garage specializes in customizing replicas of the various Batman vehicles. This lawsuit started nearly 2 years ago, when Warner Bros. claimed that Towle’s business was violating copyrights and trademarks that are owned by DC Comics.

The Court went to the actual terms of the Covenant to determine if Nike had met this very tough burden burden. In this case, though, Nike did. The terms of the Covenant were unconditional and irrevocable. They prohibited Nike from making any claim or demand, and even went so far as to shield YUMS’ distributors and customers. This coupled with the fact that YUMS did not provide a shred of evidence that it had plans to market a shoe that the Covenant wouldn’t cover was enough to convince the Court that the possibility of future harm was just too remote here.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton while there are similarities in the names of the digital application storefronts, Apple has not proved that Amazon has in fact tried to pass itself off as an official Apple app store. In her order to dismiss the claim, Hamilton wrote, “There is no evidence that a consumer who accesses the Amazon Appstore would expect that it would be identical to the Apple App Store, particularly given that the Apple App Store sells apps solely for Apple devices, while the Amazon Appstore sells apps solely for Android and Kindle devices. Further, the integration of Apple devices has more to do with Apple’s technology than it does with the nature, characteristics, or qualities of the App Store.”

Though the owners of the MLP Online site seemed to be aware of the fact that their game was infringing on the Hasbro trademark, they went ahead and constructed the game anyway. However, they are not upset with Hasbro for issuing the cease and desist. The moderator of the online fan site stated that, “Hasbro is not to be blamed here. As per U.S. Trademark law, as soon as an infringement comes to light, they are obligated to defend the trademark, or they will lose it. They had no choice in the matter, regardless of what they thought of the project or how it benefited them. At this time, our game is no longer in development.”

Crocs, Inc. (NASDAQ: CROX) announced earlier today that Chinese courts have sentenced 18 individuals to a total of more than 46 years in prison for producing and selling counterfeit Crocs goods. Seventeen individuals were convicted of counterfeiting, and two of the 17 also were convicted of offering bribes. Another individual also was convicted on bribery charges in connection with production of counterfeit Crocs™ shoes. In addition to prison sentences, the above men together face fines totaling RMB 2,832,500 (approximately $450,896).

Speck Products has obtained a judgment from a California Federal Court against Tsai & Shaw, a company that has been selling counterfeit Speck iPhone cases. The judgment includes a permanent injunction against Tsai & Shaw, as well as an award for the damages. The case against Tsai & Shaw is just one of the several judgments in the last year that equals over $1.2 million in damages against Tsai & Shaw and other counterfeiters.

The injunction, approved by Judge Rogers means that Diageo Chateau must stop production and sales within Sonoma County, California, which was the geographical limitation put on the injunction by Judge Gonzalez. The issuance of the preliminary injunction is contingent upon the plaintiff filing proof of issuance of a bond in the amount of $500. That is not a mistake, the bond required was only $500.