Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Carol Wilson Fine Arts v. Zifen Qian


, , , , ,

This lawsuit will interest any company that hires employees to create artwork or other creative materials on the company’s behalf.

Plaintiff, Carol Wilson Fine Arts of Portland, Oregon, hired Defendant, an artist, for over 20 years to create artwork for incorporation into greeting cards and other products. Screen Shot 2014-04-14 at 10.22.10 AMUpon leaving Plaintiff’s employ in September 2013, Defendant has continued to display various artworks created for Plaintiff on his own personal website. Defendant maintains that he is the rightful owner of copyrights in the artwork and has refused to discontinue display of the artwork. The Complaint (see below) contains a long list of allegations asserting that the works were created by Defendant in the scope of his employment by Plaintiff and thus all are “works made for hire” and owned by Plaintiff.

As general information, Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a “work made for hire” as a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment. If a work is made for hire, an employer is considered the author, and thus copyright owner, even if an employee actually created the work.

Carol Wilson Fine Arts, Inc. v. Zifen Qian

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00587
File Date: Wednesday, April 09, 2014
Plaintiff: Carol Wilson Fine Arts, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen J. Joncus, Norman A. Sfeir of Klarquist Sparkman LLP
Defendant: Zifen Qian
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Declaratory Judgment
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Ann L. Aiken

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Digital Sound Co. v. Audio and Video Labs


, , ,

Digital Sound Co. et al v. Audio and Video Labs, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00598-PK
File Date: Thursday, April 10, 2014
Plaintiff: Digital Sound Co., Stars for Art Productions FZ LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher H. Kent, Leslie S. Johnson of Kent & Johnson LLP
Defendant: Audio and Video Labs, Inc., Martin Berz Group, Does 1-10
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Paul Papak

Oregon Trade Dress Litigation Update – Marmoset v. The Music Bed


, , , , , , ,

Plenty of thought, time and expense goes into creating a website. Therefore, it has to be pretty upsetting when a direct competitor rips off the “look and feel” of your site. Marmoset

That’s what Marmoset, a specialized boutique music agency based in Portland, Oregon, alleges of The Music Bed, a similar company in Fort Worth, Texas. Check out comparison images in the Complaint or, better yet, go visit the websites yourself.

What do you think? Are the websites too similar? Confusingly similar?

And remember, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Marmoset, LLC v. The Music Bed, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00431-MO
File Date: Monday, March 17, 2014
Plaintiff: Marmoset, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Timothy S. DeJong, Jacob S. Gill of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter PC, Charles F. Moore of Alleman Hall McCoy Russell & Tuttle LLP
Defendant: The Music Bed, LLC
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman


Unfair Competition/False Advertising Lawsuit Filed Against Oregon Vitamin-Maker


, , , , , ,

Vitamins Online, Inc. v. DavidPaul Doyle

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00441
File Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Plaintiff: Vitamins Online, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Jeffrey M. Peterson of Ater Wynne LLP
Defendant: DavidPaul Doyle
Cause: Unfair Competition, False and Misleading Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke


Oregon Trade Dress Litigation Update – Carbon Audio v. Monster


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff Carbon Audio d/b/a Boomphones, a Portland-based technology company, alleges that California-based competitor Monster Inc. has created a knock-off of Plaintiff’s “Pocket Speaker” product. Monster’s “Superstar” speaker is claimed to have the same internal and external configuration, as well as copying the distinctive and proprietary sounds of Plaintiff’s product.

Image from Complaint

Image from Complaint

Monster’s Superstar speaker is set to go on sale on March 14 and has allegedly already led to instances of consumer confusion, so Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (see Memorandum below). Monster has already filed its Memorandum in Opposition to the Temporary Restraining Order.

This lawsuit is moving fast out of the gates so stay tuned for updates.

Carbon Audio LLC et al v. Monster, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00332-PK
File Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Plaintiff: Carbon Audio LLC, Headbox, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie E.L. McCleary, B. John Casey of K & L Gates LLP
Defendant: Monster, Inc.
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Misrepresentation, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations, Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, State Unlawful Trade Practices, Civil Conspiracy, Common Law Conversion, Unjust Enrichment
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Paul Papak


Memorandum in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Discovery:

Memorandum in Opposition to Temporary Restraining Order:

Oregon Senate Considers Patent Troll Bill



The Oregon Senate is currently considering what has been widely touted as a prohibition against “patent trolls.” Generally, a patent troll is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. Of course, one person’s patent troll is another person’s valid patent rights holder so it will be interesting to watch this bill (SB 1540 A…full text below) as it proceeds.

Briefly, the bill “[p]rohibits person or person’s affiliate from communicating demand to recipient if in demand person or affiliate alleges, asserts or claims in bad faith that recipient has infringed or contributed to infringing patent or rights that patentee, assignee or licensee has under patent.”

Clearly what constitutes “bad faith” will be important to delineate. The bill is currently before the House Committee on Judiciary. Stay tuned for updates.

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Raptor Archery v. Robert Maitland


, , , , , , ,

Archery_targetThis is a fairly straightforward trademark dispute over the use of the “RAPTOR” trademark in connection with archery equipment. Plaintiff is based in Hood River, Oregon. Defendant is based in Sparks, Nevada, which is located just east of Reno. Plaintiff has a federal registration since 1998 and has used their RAPTOR ARCHERY mark since 1991.

Raptor Archery, Inc. v. Robert Maitland

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00203
File Date: Thursday, February 06, 2014
Plaintiff: Raptor Archery, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: William H. Sumerfield of Phillips Reynier & Sumerfield
Defendant: Robert Maitland
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin or Source
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Janice M. Stewart

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – CTS Wholesale v. South Bay Trading


, ,

Trademark AbstractThis is a declaratory judgment action by which the Plaintiff, Salem-based CTS Wholesale, hopes to obtain the Court’s judgment that it is not liable for infringing two of Defendant’s federal trademark registrations. The Defendant, a California-based sunglasses producer, had previously filed a lawsuit in California which was dismissed on January 13 for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment on the same day the California lawsuit was dismissed, presumably hoping for a “home court advantage.”

As general information, a “declaratory judgment” is a judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages.

CTS Wholesale, LLC v. South Bay Trading, Inc.

Court Case Number: 6:14-cv-00069-AA
File Date: Monday, January 13, 2014
Plaintiff: CTS Wholesale, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: South Bay Trading, Inc.
Cause: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Nike v. DBV Distribution


, , , , , , ,

Nike, Inc. v. DBV Distribution, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00040-ST
File Date: Wednesday, January 08, 2014
Plaintiff: Nike, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Jon P. Stride of Tonkon Torp LLP
Defendant: DBV Distribution, Inc., Dragon Bleu, Sarl
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Cancellation of Trademarks
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.