Articles Posted in 17200 Unfair Competition

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark and copyright infringement and Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition lawsuit was filed at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles by Perfect Pushup, LLC’s attorneys. Plaintiff sells its “Perfect Pushup” product through infomercials and direct response, where the conception of a swiveling pushup exercise device is attributed to a former platoon commander of the United States Navy SEALs. Plaintiff has registered its “Perfect Pushup” trademark with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. In addition, Plaintiff has registered its works with the U.S. Copyright Office, which works include its advertising photos, box designs and workout poster. Plaintiff also owns the www.perfectpushup.com domain name and website.

copyright-lawyer-trademark-attorney-perfect-pushup.jpg

The Plaintiff alleges that it purchased defendants’ products and upon closer examination “found it to contain counterfeit merchandise. The product appeared to be almost identical to Plaintiff’s Perfect Pushup product, and included a direct counterfeit Perfect Pushup workout poster and workout DVD.” Defendants had allegedly brazenly established a website at www.perfectpushups.com (with an extra “s”) to sell the infringing product. The case is titled Perfect Pushup, LLC v. Suzette White, CV 09-0243 CW (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

UPDATE 1/10/2010: Court rules that Upper Deck counterfeited Yu Gi Oh! cards. Details here.

UPDATE: Court grants preliminary injunction (details here).

trademark-litigation-attorney-los-angeles-konami-yu-gi-oh.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Konami Digital Entertainment filed a trademark and copyright infringement lawsuit (details here) against Vintage Sports Cards, Inc. over sales of Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards. Konami then discovered that Upper Deck Company allegedly supplied the the infringing cards to Vintage. Konami amend its complaint to add Upper Deck and moved for preliminary injunction while the case was pending, preventing further sales of allegedly unauthorized cards by Upper Deck.

Continue reading ›

|

Los Angeles, CA – Larry Flynt had sued (click here for details) his nephews and their company for trademark infringement and unfair competition and was seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the use of the word “FLYNT” in the business name and the domain names www.flyntdistribution.com and www.flyntcorp.com. The Federal District Court in Los Angeles granted the temporary restraining order (click here) because Larry FLynt had demonstrated a probability of success on the merits of the lawsuit and irreparable harm. Pending hearing on the application for preliminary injunction on January 21, 2009, the Court restrained the defendants from:

1. Advertising, selling and distributing adult-themed motion pictures, videos, and DVDs, as well as other adult-themed goods, which contain “FLYNT” in any typographical format and phrase, including “Flynt Media Corporation” and “FlyntCorp Distribution;”

2. promoting such goods and services on Internet websites, including but not limited to www.flyntdistribution.com and www.flyntcorp.com; and

Continue reading ›

|

Los Angeles, CA – Larry Flynt took a break from seeking a $5 Billion Government porn bailout to file a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles against his nephews, Dustin Flynt and Jimmy Flynt, II, and Flynt Media Corporation – the company founded by the nephews. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the nephew’s were terminated from their position at Larry Flynt’s company, after which they started a rival company to produce and distribute pornography using a “Flynt” trademark “to trade off and usurp the famous FLYNT name and mark of their uncle.”

los-angeles-trademark-attorney-larry-flynt-surname-family-name-lawsuit.jpgLarry Flynt filed an ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order and is requesting a preliminary injunction preventing Defendants’ use of the mark. Defendants have filed their opposition setting forth several arguments, which are not likely to succeed. Defendants first argue technical defects in Plaintiff’s moving papers for failing to comply with the Central District’s Local Rules. The next argument attacks the Plaintiff’s lack of standing to bring federal trademark claims because Larry Flynt has not used the stand-alone FLYNT mark in commerce – as opposed to “Flynt Publications” or “Larry Flynt.” Defendants’ argument ignores the fact that a likelihood of confusion can arise even if the competing marks are not exactly alike. Defendants further argue that Flynt is their family name and they have a right to use it in their business. If your family name is McDonald, do not use your name as a mark for your hamburger joint. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable harm because Larry Flynt’s declaration states that “he will have to help out his nephews when [they fail]” because they are selling substandard products. Thus, Defendants deduce, if no one buys their products because they are bad, there will be no realistic irreparable harm. Finally, Defendants argue that the balance of hardships tips in their favor because they will lose their personal investments in the company and will not be able to raise additional funds with an injunction issued against them. Thus, they ask for a bond of at least $1,000,000 should an injunction issue. An update on the court’s ruling will be provided. The case is titled Larry C. Flynt v. Flynt Media Corporation, et al., CV 09-00048 AHM (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for Kirby Morgan Dive Systems, Inc. filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition, and anti-cybersquatting lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles against Universal Scuba Distributors. Click Here To Read The Complaint. Kirby Morgan sells diving equipment including helmets, full face masks, and air control systems under its USPTO registered Kirby Morgan® and Kirby Morgan Dive Systems, Inc.® trademarks. In addition, Kirby Morgan owns five trademark registrations for the designs of its dive helmets. Kirby Morgan has also registered the www.kirbymorgan.com domain name, where its Website is located.

trademark-infringement-kirby-morgan-dive-systems.jpgThe Plaintiff alleges that Universal Scuba Distributors registered the domain name www.kirbymorgandivers.com and used images of Kirby Morgan’s registered helmets, which pictures also included the Kirby Morgan® word mark. Defendant’s “webpage then automatically resolves and/or has links to Universal Distributors’ other website at www.universaldistributors.us where it sells dive products. On [that website], Universal Distributors uses another image of Kirby Morgan’s registered helmet designs under a link to ‘commercial’ products.” The case is titled Kirby Morgan Dive Systems, Inc. v. Universal Scuba Distributors, CV 08-08258 JSL (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: In an attempt to not trigger insurance coverage under the Defendant’s Commercial General Liability Insurance policy, the complaint conspicuously asserts: “At this time Kirby Morgan is not seeking monetary damages on its trademark infringement claims to prevent Universal from receiving a defense of its claims from any insurance carrier and the amount of economic damages is not known.” The reservation of Plaintiff’s right for a future monetary demand should trigger coverage and a duty to defend, especially in view of Plaintiff’s “Prayer for Relief” which seeks: “a judgment that Universal Distributors has willfully and deliberately infringed Kirby Morgan’s rights and that this is an exceptional case entitling Kirby Morgan to enhanced damages under the Trademark Laws of the United States” and “a judgment awarding to Kirby Morgan prejudgment and post-judgment interest until the award is fully paid.” See Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal. 2d 263, 276 (Cal. 1966) (“Since modern procedural rules focus on the facts of a case rather than the theory of recovery in the complaint, the duty to defend should be fixed by the facts which the insurer learns from the complaint, the insured [e.g. cease and desist letter demanding damages], or other sources.”)

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for F.C. Kingston LLC and Storm Manufacturing Group, Inc. (“Kingston”) filed a trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trade secret misappropriation complaint, at the Central District of California (Los Angeles Division), against Kingtech LLC – a company operated by Daniel Marshall and Reed Ferguson, two former Kingston employees. Kingston designs and manufactures “metal valves and custom fittings serving many industries including compressed air, floor cleaning, automotive, medical/dental, industrial flow control, and food service.” Since 1908, Kingston has used the “Kingston” trademark and has obtained a USPTO trademark registration. And starting in 1970 it began stamping its products with a “K” in a circle mark, a trademark application for which is currently pending at the USPTO.

Kingston alleges that Marshall was hired in 2000 as a Quality Engineer and became a Senior Brand Manager in 2005, where, through his job duties, “Marshall had a close relationship with all of Kingston’s suppliers and customers, and was intimately familiar with all of Kingston’s suppliers and customers, and was intimately familiar with the branding of Kingston’s goods and its extensive use of the Kingston Marks.” Plaintiff alleges that Ferguson was hired in 2005 as the national sales manager and worked closely with Marshall “regarding customer acquisition, pricing, promotion, new product development and target market selection.” Both Marshall and Ferguson signed employment agreements in which they agreed that they would not disclose Kingston’s “confidential or proprietary information, including information concerning customer lists, pricing, drawings, and marketing data.” Marshall was allegedly terminated in January of 2008 and Ferguson resigned last June.

Kingston alleges that a few months before resigning, Ferguson asked for and received an Excel spreadsheet providing detailed information about every sale that Kingston had made in the past five years. “Such a compilation of information is obviously not available to the public, and permits its user to know not only who every one of Kingston’s almost 2,000 customers are, but exactly what they have ordered, when they ordered it, and the precise price paid…Ferguson then proceeded to email the entire spreadsheet from his work email account to his personal email account.” The complaint alleges that Ferguson shared the stolen spread sheet with Marshall, who had set up the competing Kingtech business.

Continue reading ›

|

Riverside, CA – Trademark attorneys for Optimal Pets, Inc. filed a trademark infringement and unfair competition complaint in the Central District of California (Riverside Division). Optimal Pets sells pet products, such as vitamins and other dietary supplements, grooming products, and other items. Optimal Pets has marketed and sold the products on the Internet under its common law Optimal Pets trademark, but does not have a trademark registration. (Read Advantages of Registered Trademarks)

trademark-infringement-optimal-pets-unfair-competition.jpgThe complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s principal met with Defendant Vitamin Shoppe after learning of Defendant’s search for suppliers of its new line of vitamins and dietary supplements. Optimal Pets’ proposal to Vitamin Shoppe was not accepted. Instead, in August of 2008, Vitamin Shoppe began marketing and selling a new line of pet vitamins and dietary supplements which were allegedly supplied by Defendant Nutri-Vet. The complaint alleges “that Defendants were aware, at the time they made the decision to use the mark or designation ‘OPTIMAL PET’ in connection with their products, that [Plaintiff] had made prior use of the trade name and mark ‘OPTIMAL PETS’ in commerce in connection with the sale of similar products.” The case is titled Optimal Pets, Inc. v. Nutri-Vet, LLC et al., EDCV 08-1795 SGL (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark lawyers for Carroll Shelby and his trust and licensing company filed a trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and violation of the right of publicity complaint at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. Click to read complaint. Shelby is the legendary race car driver who broke the land speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flat and won the 24-hour Le Mans road race. After retiring from auto-racing, Shelby began designing some of the most highly prized race and production cars, including Shelby Cobras. The complaint alleges that the design of the Shelby cars, the Daytona specifically, has acquired distinctiveness and serves to identify Plaintiff as its source (the “Daytona Coupe Trade Dress”). The Daytona Coupe Trade Dress was registered with the USPTO as Registration No. 2,958,927. Plaintiff Shelby also owns the following USPTO issued trademark registrations: 289, 427 S/C, Shelby 427 S/C, and Shelby. Plaintiff Shelby is also the exclusive worldwide licensee of the COBRA trademark and logo, which are owned by Ford Motor Company.

los-angeles-trademark-attorney-shelby-mustang.jpg

Defendant Factory Five Racing, Inc. (“FFR”) allegedly manufactures replicas of “Shelby Cobra vehicles, including kit cars bearing designs confusingly similar to the Daytona Coupe Trade Dress.” On FFR’s website, www.factoryfive.com, FFR allegedly uses trademarks owned by or licensed to Shelby in the metatags thereof to draw Internet traffic to the site, “these marks appear in the metatags but not in the posted content of the web pages, reflecting a design to conceal their use.” Further, the complaint alleges that links from FFR’s website directs traffic to LK Motorsports and Internet Community Partners, LLC’s websites, where further infringing use of the trade dress and trademarks occur. The case is titled Carroll Shelby v. Factory Five Racing, Inc. et al., CV 08-07881 CAS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for In-N-Out Burger (“INO”) filed a trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition complaint at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. INO has been making hamburgers since 1948 and was the innovator of the drive-thru hamburger stand to accommodate Californians’ love of their cars and hamburgers. INO registered the “IN-N-OUT BURGER” trademark with the USPTO in 1978, which trademark is used on its 140 locations.

los-angeles-trademark-attorney-in-n-out.jpgDefendant Michael Anthony Companies Incorporated offers construction services and operates a website at the following address: www.mac-companies.com. The complaint alleges that Defendant has misappropriated the In-N-Out Burger® trademark and used it in its website, “erroneously suggesting that INO is one of Defendants’ ‘current’ clients when it is not, and depicting INO stores.” INO’s attorneys allege that four letters were sent to Defendant requesting removal of the In-N-Out Burger® trademark and reference from the Defendant’s website, but the mark was not removed. The case is titled In-N-Out Burger v. Michael Anthony Companies Incorporated, CV 08-07601 PA (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: If you haven’t had the “animal” at INO, it’s an “off-the-menu” burger that you must try on your next visit.

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for Throttle Rocker, Inc. filed a trademark and trade dress infringement, counterfeiting, and Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125) complaint at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. Plaintiff manufactures motorcycle accessories, including a contoured throttle device which attaches to the throttle of a motorcycle and provides relief when the rider squeezes the throttle. Plaintiff has sold the devices under its Throttle Rocker trademark since 1995 and has registered a word mark and a logo with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The complaint also asserts that the trade dress of the black device features “the following distinctive features: a velcro strap, an arcuate top portion and a concave-shaped base portion, which is approximately twice as wide as the top portion.”

los-angeles-trademark-attorney-trade-dress-throttle-rocker.jpgDefendant Eurodezigns, Inc. and several individual defendants are accused of selling a counterfeit product which allegedly uses the Throttle Rocker trademarks and infringes on Plaintiff’s trade dress. The complaint asserts that “Defendants’ use in commerce of THROTTLE ROCKER and its [sic.] sale of the counterfeit product, is likely to cause confusion, decpeiton and mistake in the minds of the public with respect to the source and origin of Plaintiff’s products.” The case is titled Throttle Rocker, Inc. v. Eurodezigns, Inc. et al., CV 08-07361 ODW (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: From the description of the alleged trade dress in the complaint and Plaintiff’s advertisement touting the comfort on the heal and palm of the hand imparted by the contoured shape of the device, it is going to be difficult to prove that the design is non-functional and entitled to trade dress protection.