|

lanham-act-15-usc-1125-unfair-competition-trademark-forever-21-26.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Forever 21 is the ubiquitous clothing and accessories retailer that began doing business in 1989. Forever 21 is the owner of numerous USPTO registrations for its “21” family of trademarks, including “Forever 21”, “XXI” and “XXI forever”.

In December of 2009, Plaintiff asserts that it demanded that Defendant immediately stop using Plaintiffs’ trademarks on clothing and to remove the Forever 26 sign from its retail outlet. Defendant allegedly agreed to do so, but Plaintiff claims that it recently obtained evidence of Defendant’s continued use of Plaintiff’s marks. Thus, the instant lawsuit was filed for trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act § 43(a) (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)), and dilution.

This is not Forever 21’s first court rodeo, but it’s one of the few as a Plaintiff. As Stylist.com put it: “Forever 21 has been sued for copyright infringement so many times, we’ve lost count.” The case is Forever 21, Inc. v. Forever 26, CV10-4331 CBM (C.D. Cal. 2010).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Summit Entertainment is the producer and distributor of the highly successful Twilight motion picture franchise, including The Twilight Saga: New Moon, and the soon to be released Eclipse. The movies are about a teenage girl, Isabella (Bella”) Swan, who falls in love with a vampire, Edward Cullen. Bella’s other suitor in the film is Jacob Black, a werewolf, which love triangle always makes for a good motion picture franchise. Summit is the owner of several federally registered trademarks for “TWILIGHT” and also owns the trademark for “BELLA”, which trademarks have been used for clothing. Summit is also the copyright owner in the promotional image (shown below) depicting the character Bella from the Twilight movies.

twilight-bella-jacket-trademark-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-attorney.jpg

Defendants B.B. Dakota, Modcloth, and Metropark are accused of selling jackets using the “Twilight” and “Bella” trademarks in conjunction with the Bella image without authorization. Summit not only seeks Defendants’ profits from the sales of the allegedly infringing products, but also asks the Court to treble the damages because Defendants are accused of intentional infringement. The case is Summit Entertainment, LLC, v. B.B. Dakota, Inc., CV10-4328 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2010).

|

trademark-right-publicity-humphrey-bogart-furniture.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Humphrey Bogart appeared in more than seventy motion pictures, including classics such as Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and The African Queen. Bogart, LLC, the plaintiff in the case, is the successor-in-interest of all intellectual property rights and assets associated with Humphrey Bogart, which rights were acquired from his children. Bogart owns a USPTO trademark registration for the trademark “BOGART” for use in connection with the sale of furniture. Bogart has previously licensed the trademark to Thomasville for a line of furniture products using the name and the trademark “Bogart.”

Defendants Plummers, Inc., Scandinavian Desings, Inc. and Dania , Inc. are allegedly affiliated companies that are accused of using the name and trademark “Bogart” without authorization in connection with a line of furniture. Plaintiff claims that Defendants advertising used the “Bogart” trademark along with copy referencing a “great retro design” and in a “deco style” to create a false association because it conjures up memories of the “style in the 1940’s and 50’s when Humphrey Bogart was the world’s most popular, acclaimed and sought-after motion picture actor.” Plaintiff asserts causes of action for misappropriation of right of publicity (Cal. Civ. Code §3344.1), trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and trademark dilution. The case is Bogart, LLC v. Plummers, Inc. et al., CV10-4151 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2010).

|

lanham-act-right-publicity-dr-dre-chronic-relit-court-dismiss.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Dr. Dre sued the new Death Row records for breach of contract, trademark infringement, false advertising, violation of the right of publicity, and unfair competition. Details blogged here, and read the complaint here. Dr. Dre alleged that he’s owed royalties on his music album “The Crhonic,” and others, and that defendants have released a “remastered” version of the album, “The Chronic Re-Lit & From the Vault”, as well as a “Greatest Hit” album without his permission.

The Court denied the motion as to the breach of contract and constructive trust causes of action. The Court, however, dismissed the Lanham Act causes of action because the Court noted that Dr. Dre did not plead that the alterations made to the work were substantial enough to trigger the “Monty Python” rule. Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 538 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1976) (editing of “Monty Python” show for television broadcast constituted authorship or endorsement of a substantially modified version of the work to constitute trademark infringement). The Court continued:

As to plaintiff’s allegation that defendants have used his name and likeness, including the original photograph from the jacket cover of “The Chronic,” the Court finds that these allegations fail to state a claim that defendants have over-represented plaintiff’s contribution to “Re-Lit,” given that defendants accurately identify plaintiff as the author of the original masters and that defendant used a substantially same photograph from the original album jacket cover, and did not use a current picture so to imply that plaintiff recently contributed to the re-issued album.

Continue reading ›

|

patent-infringement-declaratory-judgment-baby-products-munchkin-snack-catcher.gifLos Angeles, CA – Baby products maker, Munchkin, Inc., wants the Court to rule that its Snack Catcher product does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,656,514 (“the ‘514 patent”). It also seeks declaratory judgment of invalidity. The product at issue is a container with several flexible flaps that form the lid and allow a user’s hand to be inserted through the flaps to pull out a snack. In the event that the container is tipped over, the flaps prevent the snacks from falling out.

The complaint alleges that Defendant Venita Tubbs has threatened, via her attorney’s cease and desist letter, Munchkin with a patent infringement lawsuit unless it stops selling the Snack Catcher product. Instead of operating under a cloud of uncertainty, Muchkin has taken matters into its own hands and filed suit to adjudicate this dispute. The case is Munchkin, Inc. v. Venita Tubbs, CV10-4074 RSWL (C.D. Cal. 2010).

|

copyright-lawyer-movie-screenplay-torture-room.jpegLos Angeles, CA – Randles Films is the owner of the copyright registrations in the original “Torture Room” screenplay and the revisions thereto. Randles also produced the movie and also registered the copyright therefor. Defendants Quantum, Moviebank, and Bridge Entertainment are accused of wrongfully copying and distributing the movie. Randles also accuses the Defendants of infringing its unregistered “Torture Room” and “Cerebral Experiment” trademarks by applying them to the packaging. The case is Randle Films, LLC v. Quantum Releasing, LLC, et al., CV10-3909 SJO (C.D. Cal. 2010).

|

copyright-attorney-preliminary-injunction-i-love-you-phillip-morris.jpgLos Angeles, CA – EuropaCorp, the motion picture studio behind the “I Love You Phillip Morris” movie, was granted a preliminary injunction in its copyright infringement and breach of contract lawsuit against the distributor Consolidated Pictures Group. Consolidated Pictures had been granted all U.S. domestic distribution rights in the movie, but had allegedly failed to make timely payments under the agreements. Details blogged here.

The Court enjoined Consolidated Pictures from publicly displaying or exhibiting any portion of the movie and attempting to negotiate agreements regarding the distribution, exhibition, or exploitation of the movie. Order available here.

The case is EuropaCorp v. Consolidated Pictures Group, Inc., et al., CV10-2917 DSF (C.D. Cal. 2010).

|

San Francisco, CA – Clothing and jeans giant Levi Strauss owns several USPTO registered trademarks for its arcuate stitching design initially used in 1873, which it alleges is the oldest known clothing trademark in the United States. Based on this long and continued use, Levi Strauss alleges that its trademarks are famous and recognized in the U.S. and around the world.

trademark-attorney-clothing-jeans-pocket-stitching-levi-gardeur.jpg

Levi Strauss alleges that Defendant Gardeur is manufacturing and selling “clothing that displays stitching designs that are confusingly similar to [Levi’s] Arcuate trademark.” The case is Levi Strauss & Co. v. Gardeur GmbH, CV10-2122 EMC (N.D. Cal. 2010).

|

Los Angeles, CA – adidas and Reebok have teamed up to sue three defendants for trademark infringement arising from the sale of shoes bearing adidas’ three stripe trademark and Reebok’s stripecheck trademark. Adidas alleges that it began using the three-stripe trademark on athletic shoes as early as 1952 and has registered several marks with the USPTO. Reebok alleges a 1975 date of first use for the stylized checkmark and intersecting stripes design mark used on athletic shoes. Reebok has also registered its trademarks with the USPTO.

Trademark-attorney-adidas-stripe-reebok-design-trademark.jpg

Defendants Twin Best, JCK Group, and Skywide International are accused of selling shoes with four stripes and others with an exact reproduction of Reebok’s Stripecheck mark. Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants intentionally designed and manufactured their footwear to mislead and deceive consumers into believing it was manufactured, sold, authorized, or licensed by Plaintiffs.” The case is Adidas AG, et al. v. Twin Best, Inc., et al., CV10-3608 MMM (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Michael Atkins has meticulously covered adidas’ 2 vs. 3 vs. 4 stripe trademark victory against Payless Shoes here.

|

Santa Ana, CA – Asics’ trademark is comprised of two horizontal curved stripes intersected by two parallel vertical stripes, which trademark is registered with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Asics has used the stripe design trademark on shoes and apparel – for over forty years – since 1966 and has previously sued Dolce & Gabbana and Steve Madden for using stripe designs that allegedly infringed the trademark.

trademark-attorney-stripes-shoes-design-designer-asics-skechers.jpg

Skechers is accused of selling over sixty different shoe styles having the same stripe design as the common denominator. The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Federal trademark infringement 15 U.S.C. § 1114 [Lanham Act §32(1)]; (2) Federal unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) Lanham Act dilution of famous trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (4) Trademark infringement under California law [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14320]; (5) Trademark infringement under California common law; (6) Trademark dilution under California law [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14330]; (7) False advertising under California law [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, 17535]; and, (8) Unfair competition under state law [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 and §17203]. The case is Asics Corporation, et al. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., SACV10-00636 AHM (C.D. Cal. 2010).