Category Archives: Trade Dress

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: 

 

Oregon Trade Dress Litigation Update – Marmoset v. The Music Bed

25 Tuesday Mar 2014

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Plenty of thought, time and expense goes into creating a website. Therefore, it has to be pretty upsetting when a direct competitor rips off the “look and feel” of your site. Marmoset

That’s what Marmoset, a specialized boutique music agency based in Portland, Oregon, alleges of The Music Bed, a similar company in Fort Worth, Texas. Check out comparison images in the Complaint or, better yet, go visit the websites yourself.

What do you think? Are the websites too similar? Confusingly similar?

And remember, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Marmoset, LLC v. The Music Bed, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00431-MO
File Date: Monday, March 17, 2014
Plaintiff: Marmoset, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Timothy S. DeJong, Jacob S. Gill of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter PC, Charles F. Moore of Alleman Hall McCoy Russell & Tuttle LLP
Defendant: The Music Bed, LLC
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

UPDATE 7/7/2014: A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice was filed in this lawsuit on 6/6/2014. To date, there have been no discernible changes to either website.

Oregon Trade Dress Litigation Update – Carbon Audio v. Monster

10 Monday Mar 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff Carbon Audio d/b/a Boomphones, a Portland-based technology company, alleges that California-based competitor Monster Inc. has created a knock-off of Plaintiff’s “Pocket Speaker” product. Monster’s “Superstar” speaker is claimed to have the same internal and external configuration, as well as copying the distinctive and proprietary sounds of Plaintiff’s product.

Image from Complaint

Image from Complaint

Monster’s Superstar speaker is set to go on sale on March 14 and has allegedly already led to instances of consumer confusion, so Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (see Memorandum below). Monster has already filed its Memorandum in Opposition to the Temporary Restraining Order.

This lawsuit is moving fast out of the gates so stay tuned for updates.

Carbon Audio LLC et al v. Monster, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00332-PK
File Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Plaintiff: Carbon Audio LLC, Headbox, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie E.L. McCleary, B. John Casey of K & L Gates LLP
Defendant: Monster, Inc.
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Misrepresentation, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations, Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, State Unlawful Trade Practices, Civil Conspiracy, Common Law Conversion, Unjust Enrichment
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Paul Papak

Complaint:

Memorandum in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Discovery:

Memorandum in Opposition to Temporary Restraining Order:

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Idylwilde v. Umpqua Feather Merchants

13 Wednesday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Portland-based Idylwilde designs, manufactures, markets, brands, and sells flies for the global fly fishing industry. According to the Complaint, “Idylwilde sells to a very sophisticated buyer of flies where the stylized portrayal of insect species, sex, and maturity level of the hatch make a difference the customer is willing to pay for based on the fly designer’s style.”

The Complaint is long but it has a little bit of everything so it’s worth a read. This will be an interesting case to monitor.

Idylwilde, Inc. et al v. Umpqua Feather Merchants, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-02009-HZ
File Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Plaintiff: Idylwilde, Inc., Zach Mertens
Plaintiff Counsel: Katherine R. Heekin of The Heekin Law Firm
Defendant: Umpqua Feather Merchants, LLC, Mirabel, Inc., Bien Tan, Does 1 through 10, Inclusive
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, and Unfair Competition, Trademark and Trade Dress Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Intentional Interference with Contracts and Prospective Economic Advantage, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, Unjust Enrichment, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Marco A. Hernandez