• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Portland

THERAPIA v. THERAPYDIA…are you confused?

29 Tuesday May 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Unfair Competition, Michael H. Simon, Unjust Enrichment

The plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit has been using the unregistered THERAPIA trademark for 7 years in connection with alternative medical services such as acupuncture, chiropractic therapy, massage, fertility consultation and treatment, and herbal medicine. Therapia operates in Portland, Oregon and promotes its services via its website, http://www.therapiaclinic.com.

The defendant, Therapydia Inc., is a national network of physical therapy and wellness clinics. Therapydia has locations in Portland, Beaverton, and Lake Oswego. Therapydia provides traditional (vs. alternative) medical services.

The Plaintiff first learned of Therapydia in mid-2016, and alleges instances of actual confusion beginning in January 2018, “with many patients calling Therapia to schedule appointments with Therapydia and consumers mistaking Therapydia advertisements for Therapia advertisements.”

This trademark case should be interesting. Stay tuned for updates.

Therapia P.C. v. Therapydia, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:18-cv-909
File Date: May 24, 2018
Plaintiff: Therapia, P.C.
Plaintiff Counsel: Elizabeth Tedesco Milesnick, Andrea Selkregg of IDEALEGAL
Defendant: Therapydia, Inc.
Causes: Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unjust Enrichment, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael H. Simon

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

 

On Electric sues OEG for trademark infringement, unfair competition

23 Thursday Nov 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Unfair Competition, Marco A. Hernandez

The plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit is an Oregon-based business “offering a full range of electrical services, including but not limited to residential, commercial and industrial services along with a comprehensive service department.” Plaintiff has used an ON ELECTRIC trademark since January 2015 in connection with its electrical services.

The defendant, OEG, allegedly began using an ON ELECTRIC trademark in connection with electrical services in August 2015. OEG apparently used to stand for “Oregon Electric Group” but it switched at some point to “On Electric Group.”

Both parties operate in Portland, Oregon and the surrounding areas. The complaint (below) alleges numerous instances of actual confusion among suppliers, advertisers, customers and others.

On Electric, LLC v. On Electric Group, Inc.

Court Case Number:  3:17-cv-01871-HZ
File Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Plaintiff: On Electric, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: David S. Aman of Aman Law, LLC
Defendant: On Electric Group, Inc.
Causes: Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Marco A. Hernandez

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Photographer Files Copyright Lawsuit After Settlement Negotiations Break Down over Confidentiality Clause

01 Friday Sep 2017

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Anna J. Brown, Copyright Infringement, Photography

The Plaintiff in this copyright lawsuit is a professional photographer from Sammamish, Washington. He sells “limited edition luxury nature photography.” Pretty cool stuff, go check it out.

The Defendants are a real estate agency located in Portland, Oregon, who allegedly used one of Plaintiff’s photographs on their website without permission.

That’s all pretty standard stuff for a copyright lawsuit. We see those types of photography lawsuits regularly, since copyright infringement is strict liability, meaning liability doesn’t depend on actual negligence or intent to harm. Even the proposed settlement amount was reasonable by all accounts, just $1000 (statutory damages are $750 minimum). The more interesting part of this lawsuit may be the reason why the parties couldn’t amicably settle the dispute outside of court.

Settlement discussions apparently broke down over a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement. Per the Complaint (below), “Defendants’ counsel did not wish to be personally bound by confidentiality ostensibly on account of an article that Defendants’ counsel intended to submit to California Lawyer magazine.” Defendants’ counsel also “apparently believed that amicable settlement was not prudent, as these types of cases ‘need more exposure.'”

Of course, we’re more than happy to give Oregon trademark and copyright cases tons of exposure here at the Oregon Intellectual Property Blog. Stay tuned for updates (and perhaps eventually a California Lawyer article with more detail).

Reed v. Ezelle Investment Properties Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 3:17-cv-01364-BR
File Date: Thursday, August 31, 2017
Plaintiff: Aaron C. Reed
Plaintiff Counsel:Mathew K. Higbee, Esq. of HIGBEE & ASSOCIATES
Defendant: Ezelle Investment Properties Inc. d/b/a Ezelleinvestproperties.com, Glenn D. Ezelle Jr., Does 1-10
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Anna J. Brown

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Killer Burger sues former owner over stolen hamburgers

08 Tuesday Aug 2017

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Michael W. Mosman, Oregon Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Violation of Common Law rights, Violation of ORS Chapter 647

Just in time for Portland Burger Week, we have a federal lawsuit over stolen burgers. The Plaintiff is Killer Burger, allegedly “the most popular burger restaurant in Portland, Oregon.”

The Defendants are a former owner of Killer Burger, his wife, and their new restaurant in downtown Portland, Rock and Roll Chili Pit.

The Defendants left Killer Burger in 2016 (apparently not on the best of terms) to start their new restaurant and are accused of “using and advertising two burgers which were stolen straight from the Killer Burger menu.”

Killer Burger considers their burger recipes to be confidential information. Defendants also allegedly used the same burger names (EPIC and BLACK MOLLY) on their menu, hence the trademark claim. Note that Defendant, in a social media video, apparently claims to be the original creator of the two burgers at issue and thus fully entitled to sell them at his new restaurant.

If you can’t get out for Burger Week and want to make the infringing burgers at home, here’s what you’ll need:

“The Epic includes pulled pork, bacon and coleslaw. The Black Molly includes a smokey house sauce, grilled onions and house-brined roasted green chilies.”

Yum. Enjoy Burger Week everyone!

unnamed

Photo credit: Bob Burchfield

Killer Burger, Inc. v. Rock and Roll Chili Pit, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:17-cv-01219-MO
File Date: Friday, August 4, 2017
Plaintiff: Killer Burger, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Thomas A. Ped, S. Ward Greene of Williams Kastner Greene & Markley
Defendant: Rock and Roll Chili Pit, Inc., Mark McCrary, Robin McCrary
Cause: Unfair Competition, Violation of ORS Chapter 647, Oregon Trademark Infringement, Violation of Common Law rights, Breach of Contract
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael W. Mosman

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Portland Artist sues Vans over Misappropriated Shoe Artwork

23 Wednesday Nov 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright Infringement, Marco A. Hernandez

Plaintiff is a visual artist residing in Portland, Oregon. In 2010, Plaintiff installed artwork at a Sole Classics shoe store in Columbus, Ohio. The work was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Plaintiff asserts that the defendant in this copyright lawsuit, Vans, Inc., has incorporated his artwork without permission into one of Vans’ 2016 limited edition shoes, the Sole Classics x Vans Vault Half Cab LX “10 Seasons” (see Exhibit D below). Plaintiff alleges that Sole Classics licensed rights to Vans that it did not possess.

Stay tuned for updates.

Nichols v. Vans, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-02208-HZ
File Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Plaintiff: Jeremy Nichols
Plaintiff Counsel: Robert Swider, Alex Fund of Swider Haver LLP
Defendant: Vans, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Marco A. Hernandez

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

West Burnside Vape Spot files trademark lawsuit against SE Division VapeSpot

27 Thursday Oct 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ann L. Aiken, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Injury to Business Reputation, State Trademark Dilution, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment

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:

View this document on Scribd

 

Portland Retirement Community files Trademark Lawsuit against Residents Foundation, asserts Banking Violations

05 Thursday May 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Litigation Update, Michael W. Mosman

The Plaintiff in this action, Willamette View, is a 60-year old continuing care retirement community in Portland, Oregon. Plaintiff owns no federal or state trademark registrations.

Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 8.07.12 AM

Since 1967, the Defendant, Willamette View Foundation, has provided financial management and fiduciary services to Plaintiff’s senior residents.

From its founding in 1967 through January 2016, Willamette View Foundation used its corporate name, Willamette View Foundation, as the trade name with which it held itself out to and conducted business with the public. In February 2016, it began using a new trade name, The Residents Foundation–Willamette View. While there is almost certainly more going on behind the scenes between these two related-but-unrelated organizations, that name change set the stage for the current trademark dispute.

In addition to the trademark quarrel, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant may also be in violation of Oregon’s Banking Act.

Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 7.54.45 AM

Willamette View, Inc. v. Willamette View Foundation dba The Residents Foundation-Willamette View

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00778-MO
File Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Plaintiff: Willamette View, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stuart R. Dunwood, Kaley L. Fendall of Davis Wright Tremaine
Defendant: Willamette View Foundation d/b/a The Residents Foundation-Willamette View
Cause: False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael W. Mosman

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

City of Portland Defends its Historic Sign in Federal Court

21 Tuesday Jul 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Declaratory Judgment, Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability, Marco A. Hernandez, Portland, Portland Sign, Trademark, Trademark Infringement

The City of Portland bought the famous Portland Oregon sign – commonly known as the “White Stag” sign or the “Made in Oregon” sign – Portland's state trademark registration in the signin 2010. The following year, in July 2011, the city registered its trademark with the state of Oregon. It appears that the City started charging license fees for commercial use of images of the famous sign around January 2013. Vintage Roadside is an Oregon company that aims “to bring back to light the authentic advertising graphics and logos of [] bygone businesses” by giving “people the opportunity to indulge in one of life’s great pleasures: the gift shop souvenir!” Vintage Roadside also runs an Etsy store that sells photographs of vintage roadside attractions.

According to the Complaint, the City of Portland’s attorneys contacted Vintage Roadside and asserted that their photograph violated the City’s trademark in the sign. Vintage Roadside filed a preemptive lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment, in the Multnomah County Circuit. Plaintiff alleges both that the City’s state trademark is unenforceable and that Plaintiff is not infringing and has not infringed any enforceable trademark relating to the sign. The City has removed the case to federal court. The heart of Plaintiff’s argument is that the City of Portland incorrectly filed its Vintage Roadside Etsy Screenshottrademark application. The recitation of services in the state trademark registration (as shown above, and on p. 9 of the Complaint below) is awkward. The only good or service listed on the application is, “The sign is a visual icon associated with Portland, and is seen all over the world when major events come to Portland.” In the space available to explain the mode or manner in which the mark is used, the City of Portland simply wrote, “An historical landmark of Portland, Oregon.” Vintage Roadside is alleging that the City of Portland was not using the mark in connection with the sale of goods and services and falsely certified that the mark was in use.

More updates to come as the case progresses…

Vintage Roadside LLC v. City of Portland

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-01346
File Date: Monday, July 20, 2015
Plaintiff: Vintage Roadside LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Robert A. Swider of Swider Haver LLP
Defendant: City of Portland
Defendant Counsel: J. Scott Moede and Simon Whang of Portland City Attorney’s Office; Shawn J. Kolitch of Kolisch Hartwell, PC
Cause: Unenforceability of Trademark, Non-Infringement of Trademark
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Marco A. Hernandez

View this document on Scribd

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

24 Wednesday Sep 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Business Relations, Litigation Update, Michael W. Mosman

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:

View this document on Scribd
← Older 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
  • Follow Following
    • Oregon Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 147 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Oregon Intellectual Property Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...