• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Litigation

Portland’s new “Pelican’s Waiting Room” sued for Trademark Infringement on First Day of Business

23 Wednesday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anna J. Brown, Beer, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition

Less than a week into operation and already facing a trademark lawsuit…ouch. I’d revert to the IP attorney’s old adage of “Always do a proper trademark clearance search” but I’m not sure that was even necessary here. The Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit is the well-known Pelican Brewing Company, set in beautiful Pacific City, Oregon.

14 - 1

Defendants are alleged to have (recently…Soft Opening was March 19 and Grand Opening is today) infringed upon Plaintiff’s numerous PELICAN-formative marks by opening a bar and restaurant in Portland, Oregon (near NW 23rd, in the home of the recently closed Peddler and Pen) that serves beer, coffee, and foods under the name “Pelican’s Waiting Room.” Defendants also allegedly use a “confusingly similar” logo, as well as food and beverages branded “Pelican” including an alcoholic beverage called “Pelican’s Punch.”

Plaintiff has numerous federal registrations for PELICAN-formative marks. A few weeks ago, Plaintiff was contacted by the director of the Oregon Brewers Guild, who indicated that people in the beer and restaurant industries may be experiencing and/or may be likely to experience confusion between Plaintiff’s PELICAN Marks and Defendants’ use of the Infringing Mark.

Note that the Defendants’ website has already removed the term “Pelican” and now just calls the restaurant “The Waiting Room” so this lawsuit could be resolved quickly.

For Pelican beer aficionados, here’s some good information from the Complaint:

[Plaintiff] is opening the Pelican Brewing Pub in Cannon Beach, Oregon in late Spring 2016. Plaintiff also has plans to open a PELICAN-branded bar and restaurant in Portland, Oregon.

Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 9.45.43 AM

Pelican Brewing Company v. Pelican’s Waiting Room, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:2016-cv-00486
File Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Plaintiff: Pelican Brewing Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael A. Cohen, Nicholas (Nika) F. Aldrich, Jr., Alexandra J. Bodnar of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt
Defendant: Pelican’s Waiting Room, LLC d/b/a Pelican’s Waiting Room, No Comply Food Group, LLC, Kyle Rourke
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Anna J. Brown

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Portland restaurant Namu Korean and Hawaiian files for declaratory relief against San Francisco-based Namu Gaji

21 Monday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cancellation of Trademark Registration, Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Litigation Update, Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Paul Papak, Permanent Injunction

Food fight!

Namu Inc., operating in three Portland locations as Namu Korean and Hawaiian or Namu Killer Korean BBQ, has been serving Hawaiian-Korean barbeque since 2010.

In January 2016, the Portland company (“Namu PDX”) received a trademark cease-and-desist letter from Namu Gaji, a San Francisco restaurant (“Namu SFO”…which has a very wooden dining room, seriously check it out). Namu SFO’s registrations claim a date of first use of December 2006 for a “namu logo” and April 2012 for their current operating name, “Namu Gaji.”

The English translation of “namu” is “tree” or “wood”.

Rather than meet Namu SFO’s demands, Namu PDX has instead decided to seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement in Oregon federal court. Namu PDX goes a step further and requests that Namu SFO also be prevented from advertising or marketing in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, Namu PDX seeks cancellation of Namu SFO’s federal registrations, based on some apparent problems with the owner listed in the applications.

The two NAMUs, one in Portland, NAMU PDX, and one in San Francisco, NAMU SFO, have coexisted peacefully for years. This is largely due to the fact that the Bay Area and the Northwest are distinct geographic regions for the purpose of gastronomic tourism. Where San Francisco is home to many ultra-gourmet restaurants, Portland prides itself on its accessibility to international style street food.

Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 7.33.30 AM

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 7.31.29 AM

Namu Inc. v. Namu Haight, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00453-PK
File Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Plaintiff: Namu Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Darian A. Stanford, Scott T. Rennie, J. Curtis Edmondson of Slinde Nelson Stanford
Defendant: Namu Haight LLC, David Lee
Cause: Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of Trademark, Cancellation of Trademark Registration, Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Paul Papak

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

adidas “Three-Stripe” Trademark enforced against Four-Stripe Footwear

08 Tuesday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Adidas, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, Marco A. Hernandez, State Trademark Dilution, State Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

The adidas “Three-Stripe” crusade continues, this time against four stripes…

Screen Shot 2016-03-08 at 10.37.29 AM

 

Click the Adidas tag on this post for other “Three-Stripe” litigation.

adidas America, Inc. et al v. Athletic Propulsion Labs, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00415-HZ
File Date: Monday, March 7, 2016
Plaintiff: adidas America, Inc., adidas AG
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen M. Feldman of Perkins Coie LLP
Defendant: Athletic Propulsion Labs
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, State Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, State Trademark Dilution
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Marco A. Hernandez

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Too Marker Products et al v. Peter Pauper Press

03 Thursday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Federal Trademark Infringement, John V. Acosta, Litigation Update, Unfair Competition

Plaintiff manufactures and sells high-end markers for illustrators and design professionals. Their “COPIC” line of markers have distinctive squarish bodies and distinctive squarish cap-ends, both protected by U.S. trademark registrations.

This lawsuit arises because the configuration of Defendant’s Studio Series markers is alleged to be confusingly similar to the configuration denoted in the trademark registrations and the configuration of Plaintiffs’ markers.

In 2014, Plaintiff filed a similar lawsuit. That case resulted in a settlement agreement and permanent injunction against the defendant.

Registration

Too Marker Products, Inc. et al v. Peter Pauper Press, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00387-AC
File Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Plaintiff: Too Marker Products, Inc., Imagination International, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Timothy S. DeJong, Jacob S. Gill of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, P.C.
Defendant: Peter Pauper Press, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Department of Corrections sues over YouTube prison video

26 Friday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright Infringement, DMCA, Litigation Update, Thomas M. Coffin, YouTube

The State of Oregon, via the Department of Corrections, claims to be the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights in a video entitled “Prison Cell Extraction,” showing the techniques to remove a prisoner from a cell. Defendant somehow obtained the video and posted it on YouTube.

Upon learning of the posting, the State of Oregon initiated a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) takedown request with YouTube to remove the video, and the video was initially removed by YouTube.

Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 10.47.45 AMDefendant then filed a DMCA counter notification with YouTube, swearing under penalty of perjury that the video was removed by YouTube due to a mistake or misidentification on the basis that “its my video of me”.

YouTube informed the State of Oregon of the counter notification with instructions that if the State of Oregon did not “file an action seeking a court order to restrain the counter notifier’s allegedly infringing activity” the video could be reinstated on YouTube.

Hence, this lawsuit. Stay tuned for updates.

State of Oregon v. Ames

Court Case Number: 6:2016-cv-00345
File Date: Thursday, February 25, 2016
Plaintiff: State of Oregon
Plaintiff Counsel:Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General
Defendant: Ames
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Thomas M. Coffin

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Chinese Scientist Accused of Misappropriating Cow Feed Technology

17 Wednesday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations, Litigation Update, Michael J. McShane, Trade Secret Misappropriation

OmniGen Research, LLC et al v. Wang et al

Court Case Number: 6:2016-cv-00268
File Date: Monday, February 15, 2016
Plaintiff: Omnigen Research, LLC, Prince Agri Products, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Klaus H. Hamm, Scott E. Davis of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
Defendant: YongQiang Wang, Yan Zheng, Bioshen
Cause: Breach of Contract, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations, Trade Secret Misappropriation, Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael J. McShane

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Divergence: Online developer files lawsuit over fraudulent DMCA takedown

11 Thursday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

DMCA, False DMCA Notice, Litigation Update, Michael W. Mosman, Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f)

Here’s a case of first impression in Oregon. Plaintiff, developer of the popular online game Divergence: Online, has brought an action against a disgruntled designer for a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). In other words, Plaintiff claims that Defendant filed a fraudulent DMCA takedown notice. The allegedly false takedown notice had resulted in Plaintiff’s game being removed from Steam (a game distribution platform) for several days, costing Plaintiff “potentially thousands of dollars in sales.”

As general information, a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) Takedown is a procedure by which copyright owners can have infringing content removed from a website by providing notice to the internet service provider/hosting company. 512(f) was included in the DMCA to prevent fraudulent takedown reports, but it has rarely been enforced until recently. Copyright owners making a false DMCA notice are responsible for “any damages” incurred as a result of their action.

The Steam takedown (and eventual return) made gaming news and this lawsuit will likely do the same, as fraudulent DMCA takedowns have become a recurring problem in the online realm. Last year saw the first-ever award of damages for a fraudulent DMCA takedown under 512(f).

Stay tuned for updates.

512(f)

Stained Glass Llama, Corp. v. Bonner

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00253-MO
File Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Plaintiff: Stained Glass Llama, Corp.
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell, Drew P. Taylor of Crowell Law
Defendant: Robert William Bonner
Cause: Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) (False DMCA Notice)
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael W. Mosman

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – House Spirits Distillery v. Pilot House Spirits

29 Friday Jan 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anna J. Brown, Federal Trademark Infringement, Litigation Update

This trademark dispute involves Plaintiff’s registered HOUSE SPIRITS trademark and Defendant’s recently adopted PILOT HOUSE SPIRITS trademark.

Some background on the lawsuit: Astoria Distillery That Just Changed Its Name Gets Sued Over New Name

House Spirits Distillery LLC v. Pilot House Spirits LLC

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00141-BR
File Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Plaintiff: House Spirits Distillery LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Steven M. Wilker, Eric Beach of Tonkon Torp LLC
Defendant: Pilot House Spirits LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Anna J. Brown

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Evox Productions v. Chrome Data Solutions

17 Sunday Jan 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Accounting, Breach of Contract, Contractual Indemnity, Contributory Copyright Infringement, Declaratory Relief, Litigation Update, Vicarious Copyright Infringement

Evox Productions, LLC v. Chrome Data Solutions, LP et al

Court Case Number: 3:2016-cv-00057 3
File Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Plaintiff: Evox Productions LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Anna Sortun of Tonkon Torp LLP
Defendant: Chrome Data Solutions, LP, Chrome Systems Inc., Does 1-10
Cause: Contributory Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, Contractual Indemnity, Accounting, Declaratory Relief
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Paul Papak

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

TTAB Rules Single Location Restaurant NOT Operating in Interstate Commerce

12 Tuesday Jan 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Opposition, TTAB, Use in commerce

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently sustained a Section 2(d) opposition (by retail food giant Subway) to registration of the mark FLATIZZA for “pizza,” finding insufficient evidence that the Applicant, a single location restaurant in Bothell, Washington, operated in interstate commerce prior to the filing of its use-based application to register. Doctor’s Associates Inc. v. Janco, LLC, Opposition No. 91217243 (January 7, 2016) 

If you operate a single location restaurant or business and want to pursue federal trademark registration based on use in interstate commerce, here are some actions to consider based on this ruling:

  • Advertise in a restaurant, business or travel directory that is circulated in interstate commerce
  • Track out-of-state viewers to your website
  • Track out-of-state patrons of your business (via guest register, comment cards, reviews, etc.)
  • Document interactions from out-of-state residents on social media

Performing the above tasks could make all the difference should you have to prove use of your trademark in interstate commerce. In this case, Janco failed to maintain this type of evidence and thus was refused registration of its trademark.

TTAB Ruling:

View this document on Scribd
← 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...