Articles Posted in 17200 Unfair Competition

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark lawyers for entertainer and musician Ray Charles’ estate filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition (15 U.S.C. §1125), and commercial appropriation of name and likeness lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint is filed against Ryan Corey Robinson, who is purportedly Ray Charles’ son, and Mary Ann Den Bok – an attorney – who is Mr. Robinson’s mother. The complaint alleges that Ray Charles created an estate plan that would provide his children a certain amount of cash and The Ray Charles Foundation would receive Ray Charles’ intellectual property rights, including his name, voice, likeness, image and biographical material.

LA-CA-Trademark-lawyers-ray-charles.jpgPlaintiff alleges that since Ray Charles’ death, “Defendants have used the threat of negative publicity and false public statements to attempt to extort funds from The Foundation and its licensees … Specifically, in or about September of 2006, Defendants began threatening The Foundation and licensees, purporting to be representatives of Ray Charles Legacy Corporation, LLC, an entity that did not exist. Defendants also contacted third parties and falsely claimed that the Ray Charles Legacy Corporation, LLC held all rights to the name, likeness, and the right of publicity of the late Ray Charles in an effort to obtain a commercial advantage based on those representations.” The case is titled The Ray Charles Foundation, Inc. v. Ray Charles Legacy Corporation, CV08-02810 JFW (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark lawyers for Gevity HR, Inc. filed a trademark infringement and Lanham Act unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125) lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. Plaintiff Gevity owns numerous USPTO registered trademarks for a family of Gevity trademarks in different International Classes and also has several pending trademark applications. Under its family of Gevity trademarks, Plaintiff “provides a wide range of services to thousands of small and mid-sized businesses nationwide, including human resources management consulting and related financial services, payroll processing, benefits and benefits administration, risk management and loss prevention, and workers’ compensation and other insurance coverage.” Plaintiff also uses its trademarks on its website and owns the domain name www.gevity.com.

los-angeles-trademark-lawyer-gevity.jpgDefendant Gevity Ventures was organized in February of 2007 and operates as a boutique hedge fund. Defendant offers investment services through the www.gevityventures.com website and offers management consulting services through the ww.gevityassociates.com website. In August of 2007, Plaintiff’s trademark lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to Defendants, which was allegedly ignored. In February of 2008, the trademark lawyers once again sent a cease and desist letter to Defendants, to which Defendants responded and refused to stop using the trademarks at issue. Because Plaintiff believes that the Defendants’ trademarks are likely to cause confusion, it filed the instant lawsuit. The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2) Federal trade name infringement and false designation of origin under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) California trademark infringement; (4) Unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; and, (5) Unjust enrichment. The case is titled Gevity HR, Inc. v. Gevity Ventures, LLC, CV08-03146 DSF (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for “cookie diet” franchisees filed a trademark infringement, unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125), breach of franchise agreement, and fraud lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs are area franchisees and franchise representatives of the “Cookie Diet,” a medically supervised weight loss program. Defendants are the franchisors and licensors of the weight loss program, which in its California Uniform Franchise Offering Circular (“UFOC”) was described as a “medical-based physician monitored and supervised weight reduction and weight management program.” Plaintiffs are the franchise representatives throughout the State of California.

los-angeles-trademark-attorney-cookie-diet.jpgPlaintiffs allege that the Franchisor Defendants represented that the heart of the weight loss system was a diet based upon proprietary cookies, shakes and soups developed by Dr. Sanford Siegal. “The key to the weight loss concept was that a patient/customer had to maintain a diet of approximately 800 calories per day, half in a single 400-calorie mean, and the other half by eating six dietary ‘cookies’ throughout the day.” Because of the drastically low daily caloric intake, “physician supervision was a core component of Dr. Siegal’s diet system.” In 2002, the Franchisor Defendants entered into an agreement to license Dr. Siegal’s name, trademarks, and trade names. In return, Dr. Siegal was to be the exclusive supplier of cookies to the Franchisor Defendants. Dr. Siegal maintained rights to use the trademarks and system in Florida, but agreed to not compete with the Franchisor Defendants in the United States.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant Franchisors made fraudulent representations to induce Plaintiffs to enter into the franchise agreement, one such representation was that Dr. Siegal was part of the franchise and was contractually obligated to support franchisees and not compete with them. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unilaterally terminated their licensing agreement with Dr. Siegal when the cookies were not consistent, instead of working with him to correct production, which Defendants knew would result in Dr. Siegal’s ability to compete with Plaintiffs and terminate the license to “Dr. Siegals” trademarks. Also, the complaint continues, Defendants tried to replicate the cookies themselves “through a trial-and-error process that used the franchisees and their patients as guinea pigs. Instead of exercising quality control, [Defendants] shipped each batch of cookies regardless of whether it suppressed appetite or how it tasted” and which did not bear required nutritional labels that complied with Federal laws. Further, as a result of the termination of Dr. Siegal’s agreement, Dr. Siegal sued the Defendants in Florida to stop them from using the “Cookie Diet” name and the Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants and their franchisees from using the “Cookie Diet.”

Continue reading ›

|

Santa Ana, CA – Trademark lawyers for E.I. Du Pont De Nemours filed a trademark infringement and Lanham Act unfair competition (15 U.S.C. 1125) lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana to protect its TEFLON® trademark. The complaint recites the history of DuPont’s discovery of polytetrafluoroethylene (“PTFE”), which is the slippery, chemically inert compound that is used in a wide variety of different products. Since approximately 1944, DuPont adopted the fanciful trademark “Teflon” for its PTFE products and began to sell products under the trademark and also licensed the trademark for others to use. DuPont owns several USPTO trademark registrations for the TEFLON® trademark in several International Classes of goods. All of the registrations are incontenstable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.

santa-ana-trademark-lawyer-dupont.jpgDefendant allegedly sells vehicle polishing and cleaning services that are described as “TEFLON® Polishing” and “TEFLON® Shine.” The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products do not contain genuine DuPont TEFLON® fluoropolymer. DuPont allegedly contacted the defendant and asked it to stop use of the mark, but defendant refused, thereby necessitating the lawsuit. The case is titled E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Tropic Shield, Inc., SACV08-00252 CJC (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark lawyers for rapper, actor, poet and musician Tupac Shakur’s estate filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition and a false advertising, and commercial appropriation of name and likeness lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. Although Tupac Shakur passed away over eleven years ago, he remains a popular hip-hop musician, artist, actor and poet. His intellectual property and publicity rights, according to Forbes magazine, ranked his estate’s earnings in the top nine for deceased celebrities. His estate licenses all of the intellectual property rights, “including rights to merchandise the trademarks and posthumous publicity rights” to the Plaintiff, Amaru-Awa Merchandising, Inc. Amaru owns a USPTO registered trademark for “Makaveli,” for use on recorded media and clothing.

merchandising-trademark-infringement-tupac.jpgDefendants own and operate a retail store named Rock Town, and a private investigator – acting on behalf of Plaintiffs – allegedly “purchased an unauthorized t-shirt bearing an image of Tupac Shakur and the trademark ‘Makaveli.'” Plaintiffs sent a cease and desist letter to the Defendants, to which there has been no response. Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case is titled Amaru Entertainment, Inc. v. Reza Falatoon, CV08-03317 DSF (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – A lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging misappropriation of likeness/image for commercial purpose under Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 and unfair competition under the Lanham Act §43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125). Pamela Paulshock, an actress and model, alleged that defendant Heavenly Cosmetic used her photograph – without her authorization or compensation – in advertisements for its services in the field of cosmetic medical care and services published in L.A. Weekly Magazine. Based upon the federal cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, defendants filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) to move the case to the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, where the case is pending. The complaint alleges that “Plaintiff is the attractive female in the Defendant’s advertisement, is the focal point of the label, and is clearly visible and recognizable to the naked eye. At no time prior to or after the image was published, did Plaintiff consent to her image being published by the Defendant in this manner, nor to any agent or employee of the Defendant.” The complaint also asserts causes of action for invasion of common law right of privacy (unauthorized misappropriation of image/photograph) and unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The case is titled Shamshock v. Heavenly Cosmetic Medical SPA, CV08-03347 R (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Oxnard, CA – A trademark infringement and Lanham Act §43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. 1125) lawsuit was filed by attorneys for Athena Cosmetics, Inc., at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana. Athena is the owner of USPTO trademark registrations for the Revitalash, Athena, and Athena Cosmetics trademarks.

cosmetics-trademark-lanham-act-athena.jpgThe complaint alleges that Defendants incorporated under the confusingly similar name of Athena Bioscience, also using it as a trademark, in addition to using the confusingly similar trademark of Athena Lash Serum. The complaint further asserts causes of action for unfair completion under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contract, and declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §2201 as to the ownership of the trademarks. The case is titled Athena Cosmetics, Inc. v. Athena Bioscience, SACV08-0532 AG (C.D. 2008).

|

Santa Ana, CA – Trademark and anti-cybersquatting attorneys for Buy.com filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition, cyberquatting, and California Business and Professions Code §17200 lawsuit in Federal District Court in Santa Ana against an alleged cybersquatter of the buys.com domain name. Buy.com has been an e-commerce company since 1997 and has operated the website buy.com to market and sell products since at least 1998. Buy.com owns three relevant trademarks related to its business, which marks are registered on the Principal Register of the USPTO. Buy.com alleges that “throughout the past 10 years, Plaintiff has used the buy.com trademarks to build and establish considerable goodwill in the online retail industry. In fact, through the use of these trademarks, Plaintiff is universally recognized as a leader in e-commerce and as a provider of superior goods and services, and is visited by over 5 million US shoppers each month.”

The complaint continues, “Defendant is the registrant of the Internet domain name buys.com [with an additional “s”]. Defendant uses the buys.com website to profit from the Buy.com trademarks. Specifically, Defendant’s buys.com website contains numerous advertisements for and/or hyperlinks to a variety of products and services that compete directly with Plaintiff, such as eBay and Dell. Upon information and belief, Defendant receives a payment when Internet users click on one or more links or advertisements on the buys.com website . . . By using the buys.com domain name that is confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s trademarks Defendant was and is creating, or attempting to create, an association between the buys.com domain name and Plaintiff, and has frustrated or diverted Internet traffic intended for Plaintiff.” The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2) False designation of origin and unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) Cybersquatting under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); (4) California common law unfair competition; (5) Unfair competition under California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; (6) Common law unfair competition; and (7) Declaratory Judgment under 28 U.S.C. §2201. The case is titled: Buy.com, Inc. v. Webmagic Ventures, LLC, SACV08-00510 JVS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Chiropractor Dr. Jeffrey James’ trademark attorneys filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition, and a false advertising lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, against rival chiropractor Dr. Michael Karr, dba West Los Angeles Chiropractic. Dr. James asserts that he has provided chiropractic services under his personal name and “Westside Spine and Injury Center” – which function as his trademarks – in the Los Angeles area for over 20 years. Dr. James has also maintained a website since 2004 to attract potential consumers of his services throughout the United States and the rest of the world. The complaint states that over “the past 10+ years, [Dr. James] has built a strong following and became (sic) famous for his services, and the name ‘Dr. Jeffrey James’ has acquired secondary meaning as a designation of source or origin of the high quality services the [Dr. James] provides under the name ‘Dr. Jeffrey James’ and ‘Westside Spine and Injury Center.'”

Dr. Karr operates a website on the Internet located at westlachiropractic.com to advertise his chiropractic services in competition with Dr. James. “In or about March 2008, [Dr. James] discovered [Dr. Karr’s] use of his name ‘Dr. Jeffrey James’, in order to attract potential customers to [Dr. Karr’s] website.” Dr. Karr allegedly also used “Dr. Jeffrey James” as a “keyword trigger on the Google website by affirmatively requesting that the Google AdWords program list [Dr. Karr’s] Website when a Google user inputs ‘Dr. Jeffrey James’ as a search request, using the name ‘Jeffrey James’ in the title of the advertisements so as to attract Internet users . . . and creating the false impression that [Dr. Karr was] related to [Dr. James] (“Palming Off”) in order to induce their business or cause initial interest confusion.” In addition to a preliminary and permanent injunction, Dr. James seeks monetary damages against Dr. Karr. The case is titled: Dr. Jeffrey James D.C. v. Michael Karr, CV08-02231 GPS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark and copyright attorneys for Guru Denim, a subsidiary of True Religion Apparel, filed a trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125) complaint at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles to stop copying of its jeans and sales of fakes and counterfeits. Guru Denim has sought copyright, patent, and trademark protection on its garments and jeans. Guru Denim owns U.S. Patent No. D547530 for the stitch pattern applied to True Religion Brand Jeans pants. Guru Denim owns two U.S. Copyright Registrations for the True Religion Brand Jeans Designs, Copyright Certificate of Registration numbers VA1-192-834 and VA1-301-845.

attorneys-jeans-denim-apparel-copying-trademark-design-copyright-patent-true-religion.jpgGuru Denim owns a USPTO registered trademark for the “True Religion Brand Jeans World Tour Fashion for the Senses Section Row Seat.” Also, Guru Denim “owns registered United States trademarks in the pocket stitching pattern that appears on True Religion Brand Jeans pants and the overall stitching pattern on the front of True Religion Brand Jeans pants.” Guru Denim also has 4 USPTO registered trademarks for “True Religion Brand Jeans” with assorted designs. Finally, Guru Denim has registered its “True Religion” word marks with the USPTO. Guru Denim’s “line of ‘super-premium’ denim wear, which ranges in retail price from $170.00 to in excess of $300.00, is acclaimed in the fashion industry due to its famous name recognition which represents quality and distinguished craftsmanship. Each piece of clothing or pair of denim distributed under the Mark bears an emblem of a smiling Buddha strumming a guitar and, in some occasions, is elaborately embroidered.”

Guru Denim discovered that numerous defendants were selling allegedly fake and counterfeit jeans on their Websites. The complaint asserts that Guru Denim’s investigator purchased a True Religion pair of jeans from the denimbutt.com website for $129.00 plus a shipping cost of $1.95, where the defendant causes confusion by claiming that it is “committed to selling only first-quality, genuine designer fashions (sic) items, clothes and accessories.” The complaint continues that Guru Denim’s “inspection of the purchased item using security measures confirmed that the item Defendants sold to the investigator was in fact a counterfeit pair of True Religion Brand Jeans denim pants.”

Continue reading ›