• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Litigation

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Christopher Douglas v. Leigh Keno

07 Friday Oct 2011

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anna J. Brown, Thomas Freedman, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Unfair Trade Practices

Christopher Douglas v. Leigh Keno et al

Court Case Number: 3:11-cv-01204-BR
File Date: Thursday, October 06, 2011
Plaintiff: Christopher Douglas
Plaintiff Counsel: Thomas Freedman, Jr. of Pearl Law LLC
Defendant: Leigh Keno, Leslie Keno, Theodore Alexendar USA, Inc
Cause: Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act), Unfair Competition, Unfair Trade Practices
Court: District Court of Oregon
Judge: Judge Anna J. Brown

View this document on Scribd

Zynga files Answer and Counterclaims in Oregon Trail Lawsuit

17 Friday Jun 2011

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Oregon Trail, The Learning Company, Zynga

Zynga has filed Answer and Counterclaims in their lawsuit with The Learning Company, makers of the Oregon Trail. Long story short, Zynga denies everything and asks for a Declaratory Judgement of Non-Infringement. They claim their use of the term “Oregon Trail” was a descriptive and fair use. Take a look for yourself below:

View this document on Scribd

[Update 10/26/11: There’s been no action in the courts on this case since an August 5 conference was cancelled. Stay tuned for updates. Perhaps the Oregon Trail was not a popular Frontierville expansion?]

Oregon Trail Owners Sue Zynga, Maker of Frontierville

20 Friday May 2011

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

≈ Leave a comment

Interesting IP litigation story from Kotaku:

The May 30 launch of an “Oregon Trail” expansion pack in the popular Facebook game Frontierville has caught notice of the company holding the copyright to the edutainment classic, and it has sued to put a stop to the plans of Frontierville maker Zynga.

The lawsuit, filed by The Learning Company in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges that Zynga cut a trailer for its “Oregon Trail” missions (above) that highlights similarities between them and the The Oregon Trail notably “setting up a wagon, provisioning, hunting, fording rivers, and helping others.” For the record, the trailer refers not to dysentery but “the Rocky Mountain Scoots.”

[Yes, the lawsuit is going on in Massachusetts but I couldn’t avoid mentioning it here.]

Full Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Check out Gamasutra for more details.

Oregon Patent Litigation Update – Digimarc v. Shazam

11 Tuesday Jan 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Patent

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Digimarc v. Shazam

The Digimarc v. Shazam patent ligitation filed back in November 2009 has been dismissed while the parties discuss ways to work together. The parties recognize they have a number of mutual commercial interests and have agreed it is best not to have the distraction and expense of a lawsuit as they explore possible synergistic opportunities.

Patent litigation gets expensive, eh? I could have told them that from the beginning…

Source: Market Watch

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Pepsico v. Su Casa Imports

01 Thursday Apr 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ancer L. Haggerty, Federal Unfair Competition, Pepsico, Su Casa Imports, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Court Case Number: 3:10-cv-00330-HA
File Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010
Plaintiff: Pepsico, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: J. Peter Staples of Chernoff Vilhauer McClung & Stenzel LLP
Defendant: Su Casa Imports, Inc.
Cause(s): Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Oregon Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Judge Ancer L. Haggerty

…

Please leave a comment if you’d like a full copy of the complaint.

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – NetBiz v. Global Market Exposure Corp.

19 Friday Mar 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Court Case Number: 3:10-cv-00265-HU
File Date: Friday, March 12, 2010
Plaintiff: NetBiz, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel P. Larsen, Stacey E. Mark of Ater Wynne, LLP
Defendant: Global Market Exposure Corp., Alex Lockwood
Causes: Breach of Noncompete Agreement, Defamation, Federal Unfair Competition and False Advertising, State Trademark Infringement, State Trademark Dilution, State Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference,
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel

Please leave a comment if you’d like a copy of the full complaint.

Oregon Patent Litigation Update – Digimarc v. Shazam

18 Wednesday Nov 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Patent

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bruce Davis, Digimarc, Shazam

Digimarc Corporation has filed a complaint for patent infringement against Shazam Entertainment, Ltd. According to Shazam, it is the world’s leading mobile music discovery provider, used by more than 50 million people in over 150 countries. Digimarc asserts that Shazam’s music identification technology infringes three of Digimarc’s patents, including two patents dating back to 1995. Digimarc’s patents relate to technology that enables devices to identify audio and visual content and immediately link the consumer to associated internet services.

“We prefer negotiated business relations over litigation, but having not made progress in initiating such discussions, we are heading to court to enforce our patents,” stated Bruce Davis, chairman and CEO of Digimarc. “While we are comfortable seeking help from the courts to enforce our intellectual property rights where they are not properly respected, our general approach is to foster adoption of our technologies by establishing mutually profitable business relationships in which we receive fair consideration for our innovations while supporting continued progress toward the realization of a shared vision.” Digimarc has invented a range of technologies that employ cameras, microphones and other sensors to enable instant identification of all forms of media content. The contextual awareness of the phone combined with instant object identification enables new, more efficient and higher quality methods to search without text input. Applications like Shazam use Digimarc’s innovations to provide more intuitive means for users to search for and get delivery of rich Internet experiences.


Please leave a comment with your contact information if you’d like a copy of the full complaint.

Source: EarthTimes

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Adidas America v. Calmese

14 Wednesday Oct 2009

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

≈ Leave a comment

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update:

Adidas America v. Calmese
No. 08-CV-91-ST (October 7, 2009)
U.S. District Court, Oregon
Before: Brown

For Full Opinion:
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94690

TRADEMARK; LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION  (Defendant failed to show likelihood of confusion even though the court found Defendant had fanciful or arbitrary mark, similar business channels, and bad faith on the part of plaintiff.)

Opinion (Brown): Defendant Calmese registered a trademark in the phrase “prove-it!” Plaintiff Adidas America used the same phrase on a line of t-shirts. Plaintiff sued defendant for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The district court held three factors of the likelihood of confusion test weighed in favor of Defendant: Defendant’s mark was fanciful or arbitrary, both parties sold goods in the Phoenix, Arizona area, and therefore operated in similar business channels, and Plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of Defendant’s trademark, thus showing bad faith on the part of Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff’s goods were not related to Defendant’s goods, the marks used lacked similarity, and Defendant showed no evidence of actual confusion. The court held Defendant failed to show any likelihood of confusion. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted.

Source: Willamette Law Online

adidas_logo

Oregon Blocking Access to Public Domain Law via Copyright Litigation

23 Wednesday Sep 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Litigation, Oregon

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright Litigation

While all federal documents in the US are under the public domain, state governments don’t always follow that rule, and the state of Oregon has a history of trying to lock up its documents. Last year, there was some attention generated when some people uploaded copies of certain Oregon laws. Yes, it seems positively ridiculous that the state might claim copyright over the laws people are expected to follow. The state claimed that it was just complaining about the fact that the laws were scanned from its own book, with its own notes and page numbers — and that it wouldn’t complain if people had just copied the law. But that’s a weak excuse, and the state backed down later.

However, Oregon is back in the news on a similar issue, as Slashdot points us to the news that a professor is challenging the state’s attorney general to sue him after he scanned and posted a state-produced guide to using public-records laws. You would think, again, that the state would want such a document spread as widely as possible, as it would better help Oregonians understand the law. But the state claims it needs to sell the book for $25 to cover production costs. That doesn’t seem like much of an excuse. The fact that the state needs to produce a guide to understand its own laws seems troubling enough. Then locking them down with a copyright claim just makes it that much worse.

Source: Techdirt

Oregon State in Mustard Seed Patent Dispute

10 Thursday Sep 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Patent

≈ Leave a comment

(AP) — BOISE, Idaho – Three Pacific Northwest universities face a federal lawsuit that accuses them of using, without permission, a Canadian inventor’s patented process to build a better yellow mustard seed.

Soheil Sharafabadi, who filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Seattle, says the University of Idaho used his patent to produce new varieties of mustard seed with higher yields.

Washington State University and Oregon State University collaborated with the Idaho university, providing research stations and scientists, according to court documents.

The lawsuit, filed July 23, names all three schools and agricultural suppliers in Idaho, Washington, Montana and California that sell and distribute the mustard seeds Sharafabadi says were developed with his 1990 “Pseudoplastic Yellow Mustard Gum” patent (Patent No. 4,980,186).

Seed patent

Plaintiff: Soheil K Sharafabadi
Defendant: University of Idaho, Pacific Northwest Farmers Coop (Genesee), Pacific Northwest Farmers Coop (Colfax), Montana Specialty Mills LLC, McKay Seeds Company, LA Hearne Company, Oregon State University and Washington State University
Case Number: 2:2009cv01043
Filed: July 23, 2009
Court: Washington Western District Court
Office: Seattle Office [ Court Info ]
County: XX Outside US
Presiding Judge: Judge James L. Robart
Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property – Patent
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Full story here.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

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...