|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for Activision filed a copyright infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles to protect its video game copyrights and to stop sales of unauthorized copies. Activision is the copyright owner or licensee of exclusive rights in Call Of Duty 3, which game is the subject of two copyright registrations – one for the Xbox 360 version and one for the Nintendo Wii Version – duly issued by the Register of Copyrights. The complaint alleges that, “among the exclusive rights granted to Plaintiff under the Copyright Act are the exclusive rights to reproduce the Copyrighted Video Games, to make or create derivative works from the Copyrighted Video Games, and to distribute the Copyrighted Video Games to the public.”

copyright-attorneys-in-los-angeles-cd3-video.jpgPlaintiff alleges that “Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiff, has copied the Copyrighted Video Games and distributed the Copyrighted Video Games to the public. In doing so, Defendant has violated Plaintiff’s exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendants’ actions constitute infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright.” Plaintiff believes that Defendant may have sold other copyrighted video games and reserves the right to add additional copyright causes of action after discovery is conducted. Activision requests statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), of not more than $ 30,000.00 and not less than $ 750.00 for each copyrighted work and requests the court order the defendant to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled Activision Publishing, Inc. v. Guse, CV08-03756 FMS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

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).

|

Santa Ana, CA – Patent attorneys for Allstar Tire & Wheel commenced patent infringement litigation at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana Division) to protect a wheel design patent from copying. U.S. Patent No. D503,369, titled “Decorative Vehicular Wheel Lip,” issued on March 29, 2005 to an individual inventor, Joey K. Kato. The ‘369 Patent was assigned to Allstar Tire & Wheel, including the right to sue for infringement.

patent-attorney-wheel-af129.jpgAllstar sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant Wheel Pros in mid-2007; however, the complaint alleges that Wheel Pros has not responded and has not ceased the sale of infringing products. In fact, Allstar alleges that Wheel Pros has continued to add new models of wheels that infringe the ‘369 Patent. As a result, the complaint claims that Wheel Pros’ alleged infringement is willful and intentional and requests enhanced damages. The case is titled Allstar Tire & Wheel, Inc. v. Wheel Pros, Inc., SACV08-00563 AHS (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).

|

In a jewelry patent infringement lawsuit pending at the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, after oral arguments by each party’s patent attorneys at the Markman hearing, the Court issued its claim construction ruling interpreting the disputed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,928,734 (“the ‘734 patent”), 6,990,736 (“the ‘736 patent”), 7,032,314 (“the ‘314 patent”) and 7,076,972 (“the ‘972 patent”). The patents cover jewelry rings made of tungsten carbide and a method for making such jewelry rings. The ‘736, ‘314, and ‘972 patents are continuations-in-part of unasserted U.S. Patent No. 6,062,045, titled “Wear Resistance Jewelry.”

jewelry-patent-attorney-design-tungsten.jpgThe Court set forth the legal standard for claim construction as a question of law to be decided by the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The patentee’s use of a claim term in the specification is highly relevant to understanding the proper context in which the term is used. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The specification is the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id., citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Following these controlling cases in the patent claim construction arena cited above, the Court adopted some of each party’s proposed claim interpretations and, in one instance, the Court adopted a modified combination of each party’s proposed claim construction. The Court’s ruling is available here. The case is titled Trent West v. Jewelry Innovations, Inc., CV07-1812 JF (N.D. Cal. 2007).

Continue reading ›

|

Glendale, CA – Copyright attorneys representing Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. filed a copyright infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles over alleged infringing sales of each company’s movies. The complaint itemizes each company’s motion pictures which have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendant does business on the Internet, under the iOffer username “Neighborhood-Blockbusters” and has “copied, reproduced, distributed, advertised and/or sold and continue to copy, reproduce, distribute, advertise and/or sell unauthorized copies of motion pictures owned by Plaintiffs,” which copies are allegedly counterfeit.

fox-glendale-copyright-attorney-infringement.jpgPlaintiffs have purchased copies of the movies sold by the Defendant and have determined that the “packaging fails to conform with packaging characteristic of Plaintiffs’ home video product and the disk does not contain the file structure characteristic of legitimate product.” Plaintiffs state that their damages cannot yet be determined and they may elect between the profits generated by the defendants or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504. Plaintiffs also request that the damages be enhanced because the Defendant’s alleged infringement is willful and intentional. Plaintiffs also request that their attorneys’ fees and other costs in connection with the prosecution of its claims be paid by defendant pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cox, CV08-03151 SJO (C.D. Cal. 2008).