Portland-based Insurance Company sues Competitor over Google AdWords Advertising

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff, based in Portland, Oregon, is suing Defendant, a competing insurance company, over the use of Plaintiff’s trademarks by Defendant in Google AdWords advertising.

While several courts around the country have ruled on the issue of whether the purchase and use of a competitor’s trademark in keyword advertising is trademark infringement, these cases remain very fact-specific.

For those unfamiliar with keyword advertising, one party pays Google to appear in the “Ads” box at the top of or adjacent to the search results for specific search terms. Big companies hate this practice and small competitors love it. Google really loves it, because advertising is where Google gets a big chunk of their revenue.

Stay tuned for updates as the case proceeds. For what it’s worth, Defendant’s ad doesn’t show up when I run a search for Plaintiff’s trademark…

Screen Shot 2015-01-13 at 7.08.59 AM

Williston Financial Group LLC v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00047
File Date: Friday, January 09, 2015
Plaintiff: Williston Financial Group LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard T. Cruzen, Kristen P. Reichenbach of Klarquist Sparkman LLP
Defendant: Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Cause: Violation of 15 USC 1114, Violation of 15 USC 1125(a)
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Anna J. Brown

Voltage Pictures starts 2015 with 6 more BitTorrent Lawsuits

Tags

, , , , , ,

Voltage Pictures started off 2015 with 6 more BitTorrent cases alleging unauthorized downloading of Dallas Buyers Club. Each lawsuit is against a single Doe with claims of copyright infringement, indirect infringement and state trademark infringement.

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00001
File Date: Thursday, January 01, 2015
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00002
File Date: Thursday, January 01, 2015
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00003
File Date: Thursday, January 01, 2015
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00004
File Date: Thursday, January 01, 2015
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00005
File Date: Thursday, January 01, 2015
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00006
File Date: Thursday, January 01, 2015
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Kool Pak v. Kool Trans

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff Kool Pak, based in Lake Oswego, Oregon, seeks to protect its family of “Kool” trademarks in connection with transcontinental refrigerated trucking services. Plaintiff has used the Kool Pak mark for over 45 years.

Kool PakDefendant, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, entered the refrigerated trucking market in June 2014, operating under the “Kooltrans” mark.

Unable to negotiate an agreeable resolution via attorney dealings, the Plaintiff now seeks the Court’s determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks.

Kool Pak LLC v. Kool Trans LLC

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-02036-SI
File Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Plaintiff: Kool Pak LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: J. Peter Staples, Susan D. Pitchford of Chernoff Vilhauer McClung & Stenzel LLP
Defendant: Kool Trans LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Federal Statutory False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael H. Simon

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Wayne Stauch v. McBro et al

Tags

, , , , ,

Happy holidays! This is a declaratory judgment action by which Plaintiff, on behalf of his company Bambi’s Nursery, asserts that his wooden reindeers do not infringe on Defendants’ copyrighted wooden reindeer designs.

Wayne Stauch v. McBro LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01930-BR
File Date: Wednesday, December 03, 2014
Plaintiff: Wayne Stauch
Plaintiff Counsel: Dayna J. Christian, Nicholas M.M. Drum of Immix Law Group
Defendant: McBro LLC, Scott Timothy McKee
Cause: Invalidity of Copyright, Non-Infringement, Fair Use, Inequitable Conduct and Misuse of Copyright
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Anna J. Brown

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Killer Burger v. Grindhouse Holdings

Tags

, , ,

This lawsuit involving the popular Portland-based hamburger joint and a Georgia-based hamburger restaurant was covered in gleeful pun-filled fashion by the Oregonian here.  I’ll update the story if there are any significant legal filings. In the meantime, read the Complaint below and then click over to the Oregonian story.

Killer Burger Inc. v. Grindhouse Holdings LLC

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01913-SI
File Date: Monday, December 01, 2014
Plaintiff: Killer Burger Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Elizabeth A. Tedesco Milesnick of Miller Nash LLP
Defendant: Grindhouse Holdings LLC
Cause: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael H. Simon

Voltage Pictures Files ANOTHER Five Lawsuits Against Individual Does

Tags

, , , , ,

Two weeks after filing five lawsuits, Voltage Pictures is back with another batch of five BitTorrent cases alleging unauthorized downloading of Dallas Buyers Club. Each lawsuit is against a single Doe with claims of copyright infringement, indirect infringement and state trademark infringement.

Voltage Pictures LLC et al v. Doe

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01871-AC
File Date: Saturday, November 22, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01872-AC
File Date: Saturday, November 22, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01873-AC
File Date: Saturday, November 22, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01874-AC
File Date: Saturday, November 22, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01875-AC
File Date: Saturday, November 22, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Voltage Pictures Files Five More Lawsuits Against Individual Does

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

People of Oregon, stop using BitTorrent to download Dallas Buyers Club!

Voltage Pictures returns with five more BitTorrent lawsuits alleging unauthorized downloading of the film. Each lawsuit is against a single Doe with claims of copyright infringement, indirect infringement and state trademark infringement.

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01780
File Date: Saturday, November 08, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Paul Papak

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01781
File Date: Saturday, November 08, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Dennis J. Hubel

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01782
File Date: Saturday, November 08, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Marco A. Hernandez

Court Case Number: 6:14-cv-01783-TC
File Date: Saturday, November 08, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Court Case Number: 6:14-cv-01784-TC
File Date: Saturday, November 08, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures LLC, Dallas Buyers Club LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Indirect Infringement, State Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Representative Complaint:

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Works Electric v. BOXX

Tags

, , ,

This litigation is between a company and a prior contractor of the company over the creation of a two-wheel electric motorized vehicle. In June 2014, Defendant BOXX Corporation sent a letter to Plaintiffs alleging legal claims based on violations of confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations, a non-compete covenant, and the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as well as the theft of intellectual property of BOXX. The letter also accused Plaintiff Baker of defamation and Copyright Act violations. The letter concluded with a series of demands and promised a lawsuit against Plaintiffs Baker and Works Electric. In response, Plaintiffs brought this Declaratory Judgment action to obtain a declaration that they had not violated BOXX’s rights. BOXX has filed an Answer that alleges several additional facts and includes eleven counterclaims, including several promised in the June cease-and-desist letter.

Works Electric LLC et al v. BOXX Corporation

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01773-ST
File Date: Friday, November 07, 2014
Plaintiff: Works Electric LLC, Brad Baker
Plaintiff Counsel: Darian A. Stanford, Phillip J. Nelson of Slinde Nelson Stanford
Defendant: BOXX Corporation
Cause: Declaratory Judgment
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart

Complaint:

Answer:

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Gilt Inc. v. Gilt Groupe Inc.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiffs have used the GILT trademark in connection with the sale of unique, sustainable, and hand-selected pieces of vintage and antique jewelry and related items since 1994. Around 2010-2011, Defendant began using the GILT mark in connection with jewelry, first for the sale of modern jewelry and later, in or about 2011-2012, in connection with the sale of estate jewelry.

In April 2012, Plaintiffs filed applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to register GILT and GILT JEWELRY for “mail order services featuring jewelry; retail jewelry stores.” The USPTO issued office actions refusing registration, citing a likelihood of confusion with Defendant’s U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3920768 and 3967967 for GILT MAN and GILT MANUAL in connection with “On-line retail store services featuring luxury and fashion clothing, apparel, shoes, belts, clothing accessories, pens, lighters, desk sets, tie clips, cuff links, skin care products, jewelry, sports equipment, wine, liquor, and art sold at discount prices.”

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have brought this action for trademark infringement and several other claims, including cancellation of Defendant’s trademark registrations.

Gilt Inc. et al v. Gilt Groupe Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01609-BR
File Date: Friday, October 10, 2014
Plaintiff: Gilt Inc., Paula Bixel
Plaintiff Counsel: John F. Neupert, Elizabeth A. Tedesco Milesnick of Miller Nash LLP
Defendant: Gilt Groupe Inc.
Cause: Infringement of Unregistered Mark, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, State Trademark Dilution, Injury to Business Reputation, Unjust Enrichment, Cancellation of Trademarks
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Anna J. Brown

Complaint:

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Rudy’s Barbershop v. Rudy’s Barber Shop

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff has been operating hairdressing salons under the RUDY’S mark since as early as 1992. Plaintiff’s first location was in Seattle, Washington and he has since opened fifteen (15) additional locations in Seattle, Portland, Oregon, Los Angeles, California and New York, New York. Plaintiff owns a federal registration for RUDY’S in connection with “Hairdressing Salons, Beauty Salons and Haircutting Services.”

Defendant has operated a barbershop called Rudy’s Barber Shop in Portland, Oregon since 2009.

According to the Complaint, Defendant has “on at least one occasion, received a telephone call from a customer of one of Plaintiff’s two Portland, Oregon locations seeking to make an appointment for services. Instead of re-directing the call to Plaintiff, Defendants informed Plaintiff’s customer that the specific stylist no longer worked at the store and, further, that the stylist was currently in a rehabilitation facility due to an abuse of drugs or alcohol.”

Rudy’s Barbershop LLC v. Rudy’s Barber Shop LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01481-MO
File Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Plaintiff: Rudy’s Barber Shop LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Kevin M. Hayes of Klarquist Sparkman LLP
Defendant: Rudy’s Barber Shop LLC, Rudolph Valentino Martinez
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Business Relations
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

Complaint:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers