• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Intellectual Property

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Pacific Cargo Control v. Quality Chain Corporation

02 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Michael W. Mosman, Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices

Pacific Cargo Control, Inc. v. Quality Chain Corporation

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01750-MO
File Date: Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Plaintiff: Pacific Cargo Control, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Hillary A. Brooks, Delfina S. Homen of Marger Johnson & McCollom, PC
Defendant: Quality Chain Corporation
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Federal Court to Remain Open Despite Government Shutdown

01 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Legislation, Litigation, Oregon

≈ Leave a comment

Despite the federal government shutdown currently in effect, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (where all Oregon IP cases occur) will remain open, at least for 10 days. Check back on October 11.

With budget negotiations continuing in Congress, there have been numerous media accounts of a possible government shutdown as of October 1, 2013. In the event of a Federal Government shutdown on October 1, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon will continue to be fully operational on and after October 1, 2013, until further notice. For the first 10 business days of a government shutdown, the Judiciary will fund full operations using funds derived from fee accounts and no-year appropriations. There will be no change in Court hours or services. All proceedings and deadlines remain in effect as scheduled, unless otherwise advised. Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) will continue to be fully functional.

If no agreement is reached to fund government activities within the first 10 business days of October, the Court will reassess its situation and provide further guidance.

Oregon State Trademark Registration

30 Monday Sep 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Clients often inquire whether they should register their trademarks at the State or Federal level.  Starting with the assumption that even small local businesses may encounter a challenge to their trademark in the future, I generally try to impress upon them the advantages of federal registration.  After all, many of my clients end up being successful and seek to expand outside of Oregon’s borders. With the exponential growth of “e-commerce,” the Internet is providing opportunities for national and global expansion, even for the smallest Oregon businesses.  It is therefore important for businesses of all types and sizes to choose and protect their trademarks with care…often this can mean protection at BOTH the State and Federal level.

Here’s a quick primer on registration of an Oregon State Trademark:

Trademarks are registered with the Oregon Secretary of State. There is a non-refundable fee of $50 for filing a trademark application, and the registration must be renewed every 5 years.

Oregon

Registration of a trademark with the Oregon Secretary of State creates a legal presumption of the registrant’s ownership of the mark and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in Oregon commerce in connection with the goods or services described in the application.  (A federal registration would protect your trademark in all 50 states.)

The Oregon Trademark Act (ORS 647) protects words, names, symbols or designs, or any combinations thereof when they are used to distinguish the source of the goods or services rendered by one party from the goods or services of another party. Marks are checked against other marks registered in Oregon, but not against corporate, fictitious, or assumed names.

Oregon trademark rights arise from actual use of the mark in commerce, i.e. there are no “intent-to-use” applications.

A mark cannot be registered until it has been used in Oregon. Oregon defines a mark being “used” when it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or when it is used to identify the services of one person and distinguish them from the services of others, and such goods or services are sold, distributed, or rendered in Oregon.

So what are some of the main benefits of state registration over federal registration?  It’s cheaper (State – $50/class vs. Federal – $275/class) and quicker.  I’ve seen turnaround of weeks, not months or years as with the USPTO.  State registration can be a good remedy for a purely local entity.  State registration provides an increased level of trademark protection…at least you can claim protection on your “home turf.”  However, in the long run, I’d recommend that any entity which anticipates expanding outside of Oregon, particularly via Internet “e-commerce,” should seek federal trademark registration to best protect their valuable trademark rights.

I look forward to hearing from proponents of State registration…how has an Oregon State registration uniquely benefitted either you or your clients?

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Vortx v. ChannelAdvisor

27 Friday Sep 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1203(a), Circumvention of Copyright Protection System, Litigation Update, Mark D. Clarke

Here’s an interesting claim we don’t see all the time…Circumvention of Copyright Protection System. Defendant ChannelAdvisor allegedly created software computer code for the purpose of avoiding, bypassing, deactivating, or impairing Plaintiff Vortx’s licensing mechanism that controlled access to Plaintiff’s copyrighted aspdotnetstorefront software.

Vortx, Inc. v. Channeladvisor Corporation

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01708-CL
File Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Plaintiff: Vortx, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael A. Gehret of Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Defendant: ChannelAdvisor Corporation
Cause: Circumvention of Copyright Protection System
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Coast Distribution System v. Buyers Products Company

25 Wednesday Sep 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, Functionality, Litigation Update, Marco A. Hernandez, Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

The Coast Distribution System Inc. v. Buyers Products Company

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01699-HZ
File Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Plaintiff: The Coast Distribution System Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Charles H. DeVoe, David C. Bourgeau, III, Thomas James Romano of Kolish Hartwell, PC
Defendant: Buyers Products Company
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Marco A. Hernandez

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Nationwide Process Service v. Nationwide Legal

27 Tuesday Aug 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, Marco A. Hernandez, State Trademark Dilution, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Nationwide Process Service, Inc. v. Nationwide Legal, LLC.

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01500-HZ
File Date: Monday, August 26, 2013
Plaintiff: Nationwide Process Service, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Brad C. Stanford, Patricia A. Walsh of Fairleigh Wada Witt PC
Defendant: Nationwide Legal, LLC.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Marco A. Hernandez

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – EasyPower v. Operation Technology

22 Thursday Aug 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trade Secret

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright Infringement, John Jelderks, Litigation Update, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Software

EasyPower, LLC v. Operation Technology, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01462-JE
File Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Plaintiff: EasyPower, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: John C. Rake, Susan D. Marmaduke of Harrang Long Gary Rudnick PC
Defendant: Operation Technology, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge John Jelderks

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – City of Portland v. Romtec

20 Tuesday Aug 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Portland

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Litigation Update, Michael W. Mosman, Oregon Uniform Trade Practices Act, Trade Dress Infringement, Unfair Competition

Portland Loo v. Sidewalk ToiletThe first Portland Loo was installed on December 8, 2008, “to enormous media attention.” Portland has used the Loo to capitalize on its reputation as a “green” innovator and has sold the Loo to various municipalities including: Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska, and Victoria and Nanaimo in British Columbia, Canada. The City is currently negotiating to sell Portland Loos to Esquimalt, British Columbia, San Diego, California, and Seattle, Washington.

In January 2013, Portland city officials were informed by an official with the City of Cincinnati, that Defendant Romtec was manufacturing and marketing for sale a restroom substantially and strikingly similar to the Portland Loo called the “Sidewalk Restroom.” Romtec first introduced its Sidewalk Restroom in late 2012.

Portland alleges that Romtec’s Sidewalk Restroom is “substantially and strikingly similar to the distinctive Portland Loo in its total overall expression, appearance, configuration, size, description, and promotion and features key elements that appear to have been copied from the Protected Work including, but not limited to: (a) the placement, size, position, and dimensions of its louvers; (b) the choice of metal wall panels; (c) use of an anti-graffiti powder coating; (d) the stripped down plumbing that facilitates its set-in-place installation; (e) placement of the sink on the exterior of the unit; and (f) dedicated space for art and advertising.”

This lawsuit was brought by Portland to prevent the sale of the Sidewalk Restroom. More background is included in the Complaint (below). Stay tuned for updates.

City of Portland Oregon v. Romtec, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01453-MO
File Date: Monday, August 19, 2013
Plaintiff: City of Portland Oregon
Plaintiff Counsel: Lisa M. Gramp – Attorney at Law
Defendant: Romtec, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Dilution, Oregon Uniform Trade Practices Act
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Art Litigation Update – Independence Collection v. Tala Madani

13 Tuesday Aug 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Declaratory Relief - 17 USC 106A, Declaratory Relief - Quiet Title, Injunctive Relief - Non-Interference, Litigation Update, Michael J. McShane, Visual Artists Rights Act

A renowned Iranian-born artist and Oregon State graduate is in a legal battle to prevent the sale of 114 of her paintings found at a storage locker auction.

Tala Madani attended Oregon State University, obtaining a BFA in Visual Arts and BA in Political Science in 2004, prior to obtaining her MFA from Yale University in 2006. While at Oregon State, Madani was awarded the President’s Award for Excellence in Art. Like many undergraduates headed off to graduate school, sometime between Corvallis and New Haven, Madani stashed her belongings in a storage locker at Polk County Storage in Independence, Oregon, including 114 paintings, some dating back to when Madani was in 6th grade.

Subsequently (dates aren’t included in the Complaint), Madani failed to maintain payments for the storage locker and the contents were sold at auction.

Brad Daily and Mike Claxton, principals of Independence Collection (“Independence”), won the contents of Madani’s locker at a storage locker auction.  Upon examining the contents of their new locker, Independence discovered the 114 paintings, along with other personal items, including photo ID cards, personal photographs and negatives and a handwritten journal.

The Complaint indicates Independence “contacted [Madani] in an attempt to return the personal items.” They also “discussed the return of several of the paintings believed to be of notable value, but negotiations quickly degenerated.”

Apparently unable to successfully transfer the paintings back to Madani, Independence then made several attempts to sell the paintings. However, they were repeatedly thwarted by Madani, who has claimed that any sale, in addition to criminal penalties, would subject Independence and complicit auction houses to claims under the Visual Artists Rights Act. As such, Independence has brought this lawsuit to obtain a Declaratory Judgment of Ownership (and right to sell) the Madani paintings.

Stay tuned for updates.

Independence Collection, LLC v. Tala Madani

Court Case Number: 6:13-cv-01397-MC
File Date: Sunday, August 11, 2013
Plaintiff: Independence Collection, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Tala Madani
Cause: Declaratory Relief – Quiet Title, Injunctive Relief – Non-Interference, Declaratory Relief – 17 USC 106A
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael J. McShane

Declaratory Judgment of Ownership:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Seaberg Company v. Dynarex Corporation

23 Tuesday Jul 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Michael W. Mosman, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Seaberg Company, Inc. v. Dynarex Corporation et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01244-MO
File Date: Monday, July 22, 2013
Plaintiff: Seaberg Company, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Donald B. Haslett, Susan D. Pitchford of Chernoff Vilhauer McClung & Stenzel LLP
Defendant: Dynarex Corporation, SOS Survival Products, Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

View this document on Scribd
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Oregon Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 147 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Oregon Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...