Category Archives: Litigation

Wholesale Garden Supply Manufacturer Sues Competitor for Trademark Infringement, Unlawful Trade Practices

22 Tuesday Nov 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Plaintiff Sunlight Supply, Inc., based in Vancouver, Washington, sells products for indoor, hydroponic, organic and greenhouse gardening. Plaintiff is a wholesale-only business, selling its products exclusively through authorized retail dealers.

Defendant has allegedly violated Plaintiff’s trademarks rights in its TITAN, GROW WITH US and WHEN YOU’RE GARDENING WITH THE GODS, THING JUST GROW BETTER! registered trademarks.

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-1-45-54-pm

Sunlight Supply, Inc. v. Cirrus Systems, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-02201
File Date: Monday, November 21, 2016
Plaintiff: Sunlight Supply, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: David P. Cooper, Owen W. Dukelow, Desmond J. Kidney of Kolisch Hartwell, P.C.
Defendant: Cirrus Systems, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unlawful Business, Trade Practices
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael H. Simon

Complaint:

Rogue sues Photographer/Videographer for Copyright Infringement

14 Monday Nov 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Plaintiff Oregon Brewing Company (a.k.a. Rogue) is suing its past photographer/videographer, asserting 39 separate instances of copyright infringement. The Defendant allegedly used photographs and short films he had created (but which were owned by Rogue pursuant to an Employment Agreement, see Exhibit 1) on his personal website. Additionally, Defendant submitted the 39 works for registration with the Registrar of Copyrights.

Oregon Brewing Company v. Blair

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-02130-HZ
File Date: Monday, November 7, 2016
Plaintiff: Oregon Brewing Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew D. Glascock of Hiefield Foster & Glascock, LLP
Defendant: Benjamin R. Blair
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Marco A. Hernandez

Complaint:

Exhibit 1:

West Burnside Vape Spot files trademark lawsuit against SE Division VapeSpot

27 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by in District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Portland, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Since 2013, Plaintiff has operated a Portland vape shop/lounge on West Burnside Street called Vape Spot.

In August 2016, Plaintiff became aware that Defendant had opened a VapeSpot on SE Division Street. Daily instances of confusion and an unsolicited call from Captain Amsterdam regarding Kratom – a product apparently being investigated by the FDA -led to this trademark lawsuit.

Smoke Free, LLC v. Vapespot, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-02060-AA
File Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Plaintiff: Smoke Free, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Aurelia Erickson of McGaughey Erickson
Defendant: Vapespot, LLC
Cause: False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, State Trademark Dilution, Injury to Business Reputation, Unjust Enrichment
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Ann L. Aiken

Complaint:

 

Endeavour Capital files trademark lawsuit against mining fund

17 Monday Oct 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Plaintiff seeks to protect its registered ENDEAVOUR and ENDEAVOUR CAPITAL trademarks (used in connection with investment services) from Defendant’s use of the name “Endeavor Capital Mining Fund.”

DVSM, L.L.C. v. Endeavour Capital Mining Fund L.P.

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-01985-SI
File Date: Thursday, October 14, 2016
Plaintiff: DVSM, L.L.C.
Plaintiff Counsel: Jon P. Stride, Eric Beach of Tonkon Torp LLC
Defendant: Endeavour Capital Mining Fund L.P.
Cause: Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael H. Simon

Complaint:

Flea Product Manufacturer sued over Unauthorized Use of Certification Mark

04 Tuesday Oct 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Plaintiff uses the certification mark OMRI in connection with its independent review of materials and processes to determine their suitability for producing, processing and handling organic food and fiber.

screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-10-15-45-amThe Defendants unsuccessfully applied to Plaintiff for use of the certification mark in connection with a product called “Flea Away DE.” Despite a refusal by Plaintiff, the Defendants used Plaintiff’s certification mark on their product.

Failure by Defendant to comply with numerous cease-and-desist communications prompted this lawsuit. Stay tuned for updates.

screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-10-21-57-am

Organic Materials Review Institute v. Flea Away, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 6:16-cv-01931-MC
File Date: Monday, October 3, 2016
Plaintiff: Organic Material Review Institute
Plaintiff Counsel: Frank C. Gibson of Hutchinson Cox
Defendant: Flea Away, Inc., Simon Bowles, Lilian Bowles
Cause: Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael J. McShane

Complaint:

flea-away-de

BARISTA SERIES files False Designation of Origin Lawsuit against BARISTA BLEND

02 Friday Sep 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Since 2008, Plaintiff has produced a line of dairy alternative beverages (for use with coffee, tea, etc.) under the BARISTA SERIES trademark.

Defendant distributes a similar non-dairy alternative under the trademark BARISTA BLEND. However, Plaintiff noticed in 2015 that Defendant’s product also bore the BARISTA SERIES trademark (see Exhibit B).

Apparently unable to resolve their dispute over the last year, this lawsuit seeks damages and an injunction against Defendant’s use of BARISTA SERIES.

screen-shot-2016-09-09-at-6-52-14-am

Pacific Foods of Oregon Inc. v. Califia Farms, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-01752-SB
File Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016
Plaintiff: Pacific Foods of Oregon Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Scott E. Davis of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
Defendant: Califia Farms, LLC
Cause: False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Stacie F. Beckerman

Complaint:

Deeks duck decoys cry fowl over Double Deeks trademark

18 Thursday Aug 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Plaintiff, based in Salem, Oregon, has been using the registered trademark DEEKS in connection with hunting decoys since the late 1960s.

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 6.29.08 AM

Defendants began selling duck hunting decoys in 2014 or 2015 using a DOUBLE DEEKS trademark.

Asserting a likelihood of confusion, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit with a single trademark infringement claim.

Note that the Double Deeks website has already been removed so this matter may be resolved soon.

ISA Corporation v. Double Deeks, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 6:16-cv-01667-TC
File Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Plaintiff: ISA Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Double Deeks, LLC, Approved Graphics Design, LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Thomas M. Coffin

Complaint:

Country Archer vs. Tillamook Country Smoker…are you confused?

21 Thursday Jul 2016

Posted by in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trade Dress, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Food fight!

Country Archer is a California-based purveyor of beef jerky.

Tillamook Country Smoker, based in Tillamook, Oregon, is one of the four largest purveyors of jerky in the United States.

On July 12, Tillamook Country Smoker received a demand letter from Country Archer accusing Tillamook’s new packaging of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, trade dress infringement and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Based on their belief that the demand letter was frivolous, Tillamook promptly filed this lawsuit seeking a declaration of non-infringement.

Take a look at the comparison images from the Complaint. Are you confused?

Screen Shot 2016-07-21 at 6.37.39 AM

Screen Shot 2016-07-21 at 6.37.55 AM

Tillamook Country Smoker, Inc. v. S & E Gourmet Cuts, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-01477-BR
File Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Plaintiff: Tillamook Country Smoker, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: J. Peter Staples, Susan D. Pitchford, Amelia S. Forsberg of Chernoff Vilhauer LLP
Defendant: S & E Gourmet Cuts, Inc. d/b/a Country Archer, Country Archer
Cause: Declaration of Non-Infringement of Trademarks, Declaration of Non-Infringement of Trade Dress, Declaration of Non-Infringement of Copyright, Declaration of Non-Infringement of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Anna J. Brown

Complaint: 

 

Sewing patterns lead to copyright lawsuit; functionality doctrine invoked?

06 Wednesday Jul 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This copyright lawsuit arises from the alleged infringement of sewing patterns. The Plaintiff, based in Eugene, Oregon, has sold sewing patterns since 1982. The Defendants, based in Georgia, are an online competitor allegedly selling unauthorized copies of the Plaintiff’s patterns.

Note that clothing design is usually held to be functional, and thus does not qualify for copyright protection. However, this lawsuit involves the patterns (drawings) themselves, not the clothing design shown therein.

Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. – Copyright.gov

I think there can still be an argument made that the sewing patterns do not qualify for protection under 102(b), that they are an illustrated procedure or process for making a dress.

17 U.S. Code § 102 (b)

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Judge for yourself in the Complaint (below) but many of the drawings have little ornamental design elements beyond the utilitarian, and thus unprotectable, functionality required to accurately and adequately show someone how to make the dress.

Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 9.35.57 AM

Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 9.08.48 AM

Ranita Corporation v. Beamer et al

Court Case Number: 6:16-cv-01368-MC
File Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Plaintiff: Ranita Corporation d/b/a Sure-Fit Designs
Plaintiff Counsel: Jacob S. Gill of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.
Defendant: Oticca Beamer, Fit & Fashion LLC, Beamer & Associates d/b/a Fit & Fashion
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Copyright Infringement, Contributory Copyright Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael J. McShane

Complaint:

Bio-energy facility accused of stealing and modifying software written in “German-lish” relic code

01 Friday Jul 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff is an Austrian bank enforcing the claims of an insolvent Austrian company, Entec, that designed and built a bio-energy facility in Junction City, Oregon. Successful operation of the facility relied on some proprietary software, which in turn required a paid license. This dispute arises out of, among other things, the facility’s failure to pay the license fee. There is also an allegation that the software was illegally accessed and modified, perhaps to make the software operate with payment or to make it more functional.

The Defendants, the facility and a consultant firm, are accused of failure to pay for the installation of a software program, making unauthorized modifications to the software program, and ongoing use of the software program without a paid license.

The software code is described in the Exhibits as “written in German-lish [sic] and in a manner to intentionally create dependency and with a multitude of relic code.”

Screen Shot 2016-07-01 at 8.38.36 AM

Sparkasse Bregenz Bank, AG v. JC-Biomethane, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 6:16-cv-01199-AA
File Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016
Plaintiff: Sparkasse Bregenz Bank, AG
Plaintiff Counsel: Darien S. Loiselle, Stephanie Holberg of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
Defendant: JC-Biomethane, LLC; Essential Consulting Oregon LLC; Dean Foor
Cause: Copyright Infringement of the Software Program and Design Documents, Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Conversion, Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Ann L. Aiken

Complaint:

Exhibits: