Articles Posted in Trademark Litigation

|

Los Angeles, CA – Costa Mesa trademark attorneys filed breach of sponsorship agreement on behalf of NASCAR driver’s team Robby Gordon Motorsports and seek declaratory relief regarding the defendant’s trademark rights. Because of Robby Gordon’s successful NASCAR racing career, companies are willing to pay significant amounts of money for sponsorship and licensing opportunities. The complaint alleges that in 2007, Gordon and Camping World entered into a sponsorship agreement by which Camping World sponsored Robby Gordon Motorsports in connection with several NASCAR races.

robby-gordon-trademark.jpgFor the 2008 racing season, Camping World and Robby Gordon Motorsports entered into another sponsorship agreement where “Camping World agreed to provide two motor coaches and pay [Gordon] $200,000 per race for primary car sponsorship for four NASCAR Sprint Cup races.” The complaint alleges that Camping world has partially performed its obligations by providing one of the two motor coaches, but is now refusing to provide the second motor coach. The complaint continues that Camping World sought to renege the sponsorship agreement by demanding that Robby Gordon “ensure that Camping World’s colors and logos do not appear on [Gordon’s] car…and Gordon does not have [Camping World’s] permission to bear [Camping World’s] trademarks.” Also, Camping World has allegedly failed to pay at least $250,000 due under the sponsorship agreement. Robby Gordon Motorsports requests monetary damages for the alleged breach of contract and the Court’s determination of the rights of the parties with respect to the trademarks. The case is titled Team Gordon, Inc. v. Camping World, Inc., CV08-01731 MMM (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark and franchise law attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Dairy Queen® franchisor against a Culver City franchisee for allegedly breaching the franchising agreement and for trademark infringement. Dairy Queen’s trademarks have been registered with the USPTO and since the 1940’s have been franchised or licensed for use on ice cream, dairy products, and other consumables. In this case, Defendant Lee had executed two franchising agreements and licensed the rights to use Dairy Queen’s numerous trademarks. The franchising agreements require the franchisee to maintain the store at a specific standard, follow operating procedures, pay a monthly license fee, pay a lease administration fee, and pay a sales promotion program fee.

dairyqueen.jpgThe complaint continues that the franchisee must also agree to allow Dairy Queen to audit the financial records to determine whether the proper amount of the licensing fee is being paid. If any of these franchising terms were not met and cured, it would constitute a default and the franchise rights would be terminated. After termination, the franchisee would agree to immediately cease the use and display of all of Dairy Queen’s trademarks. The terminated franchisee would also need to pay a termination fee to compensate Dairy Queen for the early termination of the franchising agreement. The complaint alleges that defendant Lee failed to comply with the upkeep standards set by Dairy Queen for its franchisee’s location and was given 60 days to correct the deficiencies, which went uncorrected. The complaint also alleges that, after an audit, it was determined that Lee underpaid Dairy Queen by $16,911.84, which Lee failed to pay after receiving notice. The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Trademark infringement of USPTO registered trademarks; (2) False designation of origin under the Lanham Act 43(a) (15 U.S.C. 1125(a)); (3) Federal trademark dilution of famous trademarks under the Lanham Act 43(c) (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)); (4) Trademark counterfeiting; and (5) Breach of contract. The case is titled American Dairy Queen Corporation and DQF, Inc., v. Myung Taek Lee, CV08-01505 AHM (C.D. California).

|

Santa Ana, CA – Trademark attorneys, Irvine based, file trademark infringement lawsuit in Santa Ana District Court for infringement of Newport Dental trademarks, with additional causes of action for California law trademark infringement (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14320), unfair competition (§ 17200), and common laws passing off and unfair competition. Plaintiff Bright Now! Dental is a network of over 300 dentist offices which have used the trademark Newport Dental since 1985. Plaintiff has numerous trademark applications pending before the USPTO which use the words Newport and Dental in some form. Plaintiff alleges that a defendant dentist, Farshad Saghatchi, is using the infringing trademark of Newport Dental Group and offering dental services.

Bright-now.gifPlaintiff alleges that “Defendant adopted and began using the Newport Dental Group mark with actual or constructive knowledge of [Plaintiff’s] prior use and application to register the Newport Dental Marks, and with the intent to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the Newport Dental Marks. Defendant’s use of the Newport Dental Group trademark, the complaint alleges, “is likely to lead to lead consumers to erroneously believe that Defendant’s services originate from or are otherwise sponsored by, approved by, or affiliated with the owner of the Newport Dental” trademarks. In addition to preliminary and permanent injunctions, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and attorneys’ fees as a result of the Defendant’s alleged trademark infringement. The case is titled Bright Now! Dental, Inc., v. Newport Dental Group, SACV08-00223 JVS (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Glendale, California trademark attorney files, on behalf of Nike, a trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition, Lanham Act dilution of famous trademark, section 17200 unfair competition, and dilution under California law complaint in Los Angeles Federal District Court. Nike is combating the willful sale of unlicensed and counterfeit products that bear Nike’s numerous trademarks registered with the USPTO. Nike alleges that it sells over 4.5 billion dollars of merchandise a year all of which bear Nike’s famous trademarks.

nike_swoosh.jpgNike alleges that two individual defendants manufacture, distribute, and or sell counterfeit footwear bearing the Nike trademarks through several websites. Nike alleges that the two individual defendants are residents of Long Beach, California and base their counterfeiting operations there. Nike’s federal trademark infringement arises under Sections 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125. Nike’s Lanham Act – unfair competition claim arises under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and (d) for false designation of origin and false descriptions and representations in interstate commerce. Nike’s dilution of famous marks arises under the Lanham Act section 43, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The case is titled Nike, Inc. v. Nyla Kauv, CV08-01404 ODW (C.D. California)

|

Los Angeles, CA – North Hollywood based Air Dimensional Design, Inc. instituted a patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition lawsuit against several competitors for allegedly infringing on its promotional and marketing inflatable toy figures. Plaintiff is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,186,857, which relates to an inflatable form, usually human, made from an ultra-light, thin fabric or sheet material that is sewn or otherwise formed into tubular sections that are connected together to form the full figure. The inflatable bendable figure is connected to an air blower that constantly blows air into the fabric. Holes in the head and arms of the figure and the dynamic air flow cause the figure to undulate like it’s dancing. Plaintiff has used the trademark “Fly Guy” on its promotional product and has registered it with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

air-dimensional.jpgPlaintiff alleges that several defendants are infringing its patent by making, selling, and using undulating figure products embodying the patented invention. Plaintiff also states that defendants are infringing on its “Fly Guy” trademark by using the confusingly similar “Fly Guys” trademark. In addition, Plaintiff contends that the defendants are using its “Fly Guy” trademark as a Google adword to redirect consumers to defendants’ websites. The complaint asserts causes of action for infringement; federal trademark infringement of registered trademark (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114-1117; Lanham Act § 32); federal unfair competition (false designation of origin and false description (Lanham Act 43(a) and 15 U.S.C. 1125); trademark infringement under California law; California unfair competition under section 17200; and trademark dilution. Plaintiff alleges that the infringement is willful and intentional and requests that the damages be trebled. The case is titled Air Dimensional, Inc., v. Action Sky Dancers, CV08-01121 GW (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – A trademark infringement and unfair competition complaint was filed in the Central District of California by Woodland Hills based trademark attorneys representing RVCA Platform, LLC. RVCA is in the garment industry and is engaged in the business of design, manufacture, distribution and sale of apparel. It has used a crest design trademark in connection with the sale of apparel products and garments. Its trademark is registered with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for use on an extensive list of apparel products, including T-shirts and other garments.

Nautica-garment-industry-trademark.jpgDefendant Nautica Apparel, Inc. is a manufacturer, distributor and retailer of apparel. The complaint alleges that Nautica adopted and used Plaintiff’s trademark on apparel, including T-Shirts, in interstate commerce. Plaintiff alleges that Nautica’s trademark infringement is not only obvious and willful, but that Nautica “has attempted to misappropriate all of the consumer recognition and goodwill Plaintiff has established in the trademark by intentionally confusing consumers by using [Plaintiff’s] trademark under the words Nautica Jeans Company.” Plaintiff continues that “even a cursory, preliminary trademark clearance search incorporating the design search codes for particular design elements incorporating Plaintiff’s trademark would have revealed” plaintiff’s registration. The complaint asserts causes of action for federal trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114-1117; Lanham Act § 32); federal unfair competition (false designation of origin and false description (Lanham Act 43(a) and 15 U.S.C. 1125); trademark infringement under California law; and California unfair competition under section 17200.

|

Los Angeles, CA – Santa Monica copyright attorney files a copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement lawsuit on behalf of musician Christopher Swann against Anna Kournikova for using his music on her entertainment DVD titled “A Date With Anna.” Swann alleges that in 1999 he wrote, produced and recorded a full-length music album and in February of 2003 the United States Copyright Office issued a copyright registration for the compositions. In April of 2003, Swann learned that score/soundtrack music was need for the Kournikova project and Swann submitted his copyrighted music for synchronization with the “A Date With Ana” video. Swann was provided a licensing agreement by a production company involved in the project which Swann rejected after meeting with his copyright attorney. The copyright licensing agreement was not executed and Swann believed that his music was not going to be used on the Kournikova project.

anna-copyright-lawsuit-music.jpgIn February of 2006, Swann purchased a DVD of “A Date With Anna” and discovered that twenty two minutes of his copyrighted music was used in Kournikova’s DVD. Swann alleges that because he expressly rejected the licensing agreement offer, no agreement was ever reached and the use of the copyrighted material without license, or other consideration constitutes copyright infringement. Swann alleges that “as early as April 2003, defendants, and each of them, without Plaintiff’s permission, license, and without remuneration to Plaintiff, adapted, used, reproduced, marketed, distributed and sold Plaintiff’s copyrighted material in the defendants’ video production, a digital video disc (DVD) entitled, ‘A DATE WITH ANNA.'” Swann continues that the infringement by the defendants was intentional and knowing and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against the distribution of the video. The case is titled Christopher Jerry Swann v. Anna Kournikova et al., CV08-01477 R (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: In order to recover statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, the copyright in the work must have been registered before the commencement of the infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 412.

|

Los Angeles, CA – A trademark, trade dress, and unfair competition complaint was filed in the Central District of California by Torrance based Virco, through its Pasadena trademark attorneys. Virco is a furniture manufacturer and has manufactured a chair with three parallel slots that extend from the seat to the backrest. Virco filed a trademark application for the “three slot” design feature with the USPTO and it became a registered trademark on June 10, 1997. Virco asserts that in the furniture industry, the three slot design trademark is well recognized as a product manufactured by Virco and since 1997, its sales of the three slot chairs have averaged in excess of $10,000,000 per year.

virco-trademark-chair-lawsuit.jpgVirco alleges that in late 2007, it discovered that defendant “was manufacturing, selling, advertising, and distributing two versions of a children’s plastic chair that used [Virco three slot design trademark]. The goods sold by defendants are confusingly similar copies of the [Virco’s trademark].” Virco continues that defendant’s use of the three slot trademark “creates a likelihood that Plaintiff’s customers, potential customers, members of the trade, and the public generally will be misled as to the source of goods or services in that they are likely to believe that Defendant’s business and products are affiliated with or sponsored by Plaintiffs. The complaint sets forth the following seven causes of action: (1) Registered trademark infringement, (2) False designation of origin 15 U.S.C. 1125, (3) Trade dress infringement, (4) Common law trademark infringement, (5) Common law unfair competition, (6) Statutory unfair competition, § 17200, (7) Trademark Dilution. The case is titled Virco MFG. Corp, v. Jonti-Craft, Inc., CV08-01332 PSG (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: Because Virco’s trademark has been registered for over five years, it has become incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. A defendant in a trademark lawsuit cannot challenge an incontestable trademark on the following grounds: descriptiveness, deceptive misdescriptiveness, geographic descriptiveness, and primarily merely a surname. Another important reason to register trademarks is that a prior user of an unregistered mark cannot contest a registered mark after five years based on prior use.

|

Los Angeles, CA – In Wham-O’s trademark and trade dress trial in October of 2007, a jury awarded Wham-O six-million-dollars in damages for willful trademark infringement of its registered trademarks, willful trademark dilution, and willful false advertising in connection with Toyquest’s use of the yellow color of Wham-O’s Slip-n-Slide toys, which color functions as a trademark. Toyquest is a dba of SLB Toys USA. The Court also entered a permanent injunction against the infringers and ordered that the infringer, including its officers, agents, servants and employees, forever refrain “from using the color yellow on the sliding surface of water slide toys, or packaging or advertising depicting the same, or any mark similar thereto or likely to cause confusion therewith.” The Court, however, denied WhamO’s request to order destruction of infringing articles and denied Wham-O’s request to order compliance reporting by the infringers.

wham-o-slip-n-slide.jpgIn a newly filed trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false advertising, unfair competition (17200), contributory infringement, contributory trademark dilution, and judgment debtor’s interest (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.210) lawsuit, Wham-O alleges that SLB Toys initiated an elaborate scheme designed to evade judgment and deprive Wham-O of its monetary award through an assignment for benefit of creditors. Wham-O alleges that the individual defendants, who were officers of the defendant SLB Toys, have “flagrantly disregarded the terms of this Court’s injunction by continuing to sell and distribute to retailers unauthorized slides bearing” the yellow waterslide trademark and to advertise the same. Wham-O asserts that SLB Toys was merely an undercapitalized shell corporation that failed to follow corporate formalities and the individual officers and other companies which are owned by the officers are SLB Toys’ alter egos.

Through the creditor’s suit against Wal-Mart, Target, TRU, and Kmart, Wham-O attempts to recover from the retailers several million dollars in funds that are payable to the true judgment debtor, Manley Toys – which was allegedly set up by the same individual defendants that were officers in SLB Toys. The case is titled: WHAM-O, Inc. v. Manley Toys, LTD., CV08-01281 PSG (C.D. California).

Continue reading ›

|

Los Angeles, CA – A complaint was filed in the Central District Court of California for violations of the Lanham Act 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and unfair competition under Section 17200 over labeling of sushi grade tuna. Plaintiff King Tuna advertises and offers sashimi grade processed seafood products for sale which it imports into the United States. During transport and storage of frozen tuna, carbon monoxide (“CO”) gas is used to treat the tuna to retain its initial red color. To generate CO, it is more favorable and expensive to employ filtered natural wood smoke than synthetic CO, and it is sometimes required by government regulation. “Synthetic CO, particularly at high concentrations, can sometimes be used to induce a more intense color ‘bloom’ in lower-grade tuna,” which can be used by unscrupulous vendors to pass off the lower-grade tuna as higher-grade tuna. Only tuna that is transported by “filtered wood smoke” technique of creating CO can bear such labeling. If “synthetic CO” or “chemical CO” is used to treat the tuna – produced by the chemical reaction of sulfuric acid and formic acid, such packaging cannot have the “filtered wood smoke” label.

king-tuna.jpgKing Tuna alleges that competing Defendants use “chemical CO” to treat their tuna during transport and not “filtered wood smoke.” Thus, plaintiff alleges that defendants’ filtered wood smoke “labeling is literally false as in actual practice and likely to mislead customers, as [defendants] misrepresent the nature, characteristics and qualities of its tuna products by presenting its raw tuna products as treated with filtered wood smoke and not chemical CO.” Plaintiff alleges that such mislabeling violates the Lanham Act because it constitutes misrepresentation in commercial advertising, which is likely to influence purchasing decisions of consumers. Also, as the complaint alleges, by mislabeling their products, defendants are engaging in unlawful business practices and unfair competition in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.