• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Trademark

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Nike v. Ho et al

29 Tuesday Apr 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, Fraud, Litigation Update, Michael W. Mosman, Trademark Infringement

Defendants Yamaguchi and Ho are alleged to have used their position as managers at Nike to steal unique and/or custom athletic footwear in order to profit from the sale of those shoes to collectors of rare athletic shoes, known in the industry as “Sneakerheads.” These defendants allegedly lied to Nike and its manufacturers by misrepresenting that the shoes would be used for promotional and marketing purposes in order to trick them into manufacturing inventory for the illicit scheme. Defendant Keating allegedly acted as the middle-man in the unlawful enterprise by knowingly purchasing and re-selling the stolen footwear obtained by Yamaguchi and Ho.

Nike brings this action to recover the stolen shoes, recover the illicit gains obtained by Defendants from the sale of the stolen goods, to obtain an injunction preventing Defendants from continuing to participate in the illicit sale of stolen Nike goods, and to seek an award of punitive damages.

Nike Swoosh Registration

 

Nike Inc. v. Tung Wing Ho et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00696-MO
File Date: Monday, April 28, 2014
Plaintiff: Nike Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul H. Trinchero, Robert C. Weaver Jr. of Garvey Schubert Barer
Defendant: Tung Wing Ho, Denise Wei-Ching Yee, Kyle Keoki Yamaguchi, Shu-Chu Yamaguchi, Jason M. Keating
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Conversion, Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Pendleton Woolen Mills v. Kraff’s Men’s Wear Co.

17 Thursday Apr 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations, Litigation Update, Paul Papak

Plaintiff is a Portland, Oregon-based designer/manufacturer/retailer of high quality wool fabrics and apparel, and is known for its unique proprietary fabric and blanket designs. Plaintiff regularly enters into sales contracts with wholesale customers, who must agree that “The Purchaser will not sell the goods or any part thereof, to another dealer or to any other reseller, and will not sell the goods through the Internet without the written consent of [Plaintiff].” The 20 John Doe defendants are wholesale customers that have signed the sales contract. None were authorized to sell to Defendant Kraff’s, the primary target of the lawsuit.

Defendant Website ScreenshotDefendant Kraff’s is a retailer operating a clothing store that markets and sells apparel, blankets, and related products in Toppenish, Washington. From approximately 1941 until 2006, Kraff’s was a wholesale customer of Plaintiff. Kraff’s has allegedly continued to purchase product from a Doe defendant after termination of their sales contract with Plaintiff, thus making them an unauthorized reseller of Plaintiff’s goods. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit with numerous copyright claims based on their distinctive designs and trademark claims based on the unauthorized use of their company name.

Stay tuned for updates.

Pendleton Woolen Mills Inc. v. Kraff’s Men’s Wear Co. Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00628-PK
File Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Plaintiff: Pendleton Woolen Mills Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Parna A. Mehrbani, Vicki L. Smith of Lane Powell PC
Defendant: Kraff’s Men’s Wear Co. Inc., Daniel P. Johnson, John Doe Companies 1-20
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations, Breach of Contract
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Paul Papak

View this document on Scribd

Voltage Pictures shifts BitTorrent strategy in Oregon from copyright to state trademark claims

04 Friday Apr 2014

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

BitTorrent, Litigation Update, Oregon State Trademark Infringement

Here’s a new twist in the BitTorrent download saga in Oregon. Rather than the typical strategy of pursuing copyright infringement claims in federal court, Voltage Pictures is now going after 50 John Doe defendants in Oregon state court on state trademark claims.

Defendants are alleged to have “without the authorization or consent of plaintiff, used, copied and/or distributed a reproduction, counterfeit and copy of plaintiff’s motion picture bearing plaintiff’s registered trademark VOLTAGE PICTURES.”

It’s a novel strategy, but perhaps with a few flaws. For one, it will be an uphill battle to argue that Defendant’s uploading/downloading of a digital file amounts to distribution that is likely to cause confusion as to source. Notably, a Plaintiff can only recover damages or profits under Oregon state trademark law if the trademark was used with the intent to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive (ORS 647.095 (2)). Similar to the federal “nominative fair use” exemption, a Defendant is permitted to use another party’s trademark to reference that party’s goods or services.

It will be interesting to see how the State Court handles this lawsuit. Stay tuned for updates.

Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-50

Court Case Number: 14C13823
File Date: Thursday, April 3, 2014
Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell, Crowell Law
Defendant: Does 1-50
Cause: Oregon State Trademark Infringement
Court: Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Marion

View this document on Scribd

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

25 Tuesday Mar 2014

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, Litigation Update, Michael W. Mosman, Trade Dress Infringement, Unfair Competition, Voluntary Dismissal

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

View this document on Scribd

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.

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Raptor Archery v. Robert Maitland

10 Monday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Janice M. Stewart, Litigation Update

Archery_targetThis is a fairly straightforward trademark dispute over the use of the “RAPTOR” trademark in connection with archery equipment. Plaintiff is based in Hood River, Oregon. Defendant is based in Sparks, Nevada, which is located just east of Reno. Plaintiff has a federal registration since 1998 and has used their RAPTOR ARCHERY mark since 1991.

Raptor Archery, Inc. v. Robert Maitland

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00203
File Date: Thursday, February 06, 2014
Plaintiff: Raptor Archery, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: William H. Sumerfield of Phillips Reynier & Sumerfield
Defendant: Robert Maitland
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin or Source
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Janice M. Stewart

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – CTS Wholesale v. South Bay Trading

15 Wednesday Jan 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Litigation Update

Trademark AbstractThis is a declaratory judgment action by which the Plaintiff, Salem-based CTS Wholesale, hopes to obtain the Court’s judgment that it is not liable for infringing two of Defendant’s federal trademark registrations. The Defendant, a California-based sunglasses producer, had previously filed a lawsuit in California which was dismissed on January 13 for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment on the same day the California lawsuit was dismissed, presumably hoping for a “home court advantage.”

As general information, a “declaratory judgment” is a judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages.

CTS Wholesale, LLC v. South Bay Trading, Inc.

Court Case Number: 6:14-cv-00069-AA
File Date: Monday, January 13, 2014
Plaintiff: CTS Wholesale, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: South Bay Trading, Inc.
Cause: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Nike v. DBV Distribution

12 Sunday Jan 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cancellation of Trademarks, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Litigation Update, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Nike, Inc. v. DBV Distribution, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00040-ST
File Date: Wednesday, January 08, 2014
Plaintiff: Nike, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Jon P. Stride of Tonkon Torp LLP
Defendant: DBV Distribution, Inc., Dragon Bleu, Sarl
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Cancellation of Trademarks
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart

View this document on Scribd

USPTO Madrid Protocol Seminar Available Online

08 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Madrid Protocol

On October 23, 2013, the USPTO held a seminar on using the Madrid Protocol for filing an international application and maintaining an international registration.  The webcast of the seminar is now available online:

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/notices/Madrid_Protocol_Seminar.jsp

WIPO Logo

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Herb Pharm v. Medical Wellness Associates

03 Tuesday Dec 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Contributory Infringement, Federal Trademark Infringement, Janice M. Stewart, Litigation Update

Plaintiff, Herb Pharm, based in Williams, Oregon (south of Grants Pass), has used the SUPER ECHINACEA trademark in connection with “herbal, dietary and nutritional supplements” since 1984. Defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation, has allegedly begun selling over-the-counter herbal Echinacea products under the same trademark. Defendant’s failure to comply with a cease and desist request led to this lawsuit. 

EchinaceaFYI, echinacea is widely used to fight infections, especially the common cold and other upper respiratory infections. Echinacea is also used against the flu, urinary tract infections, vaginal yeast infections, genital herpes, bloodstream infections (septicemia), gum disease, tonsillitis, streptococcus infections, syphilis, typhoid, malaria, and diphtheria. Echinicea is a member of the daisy family and commonly called a coneflower. 

Herb Pharm, LLC v. Martin P Gallagher et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-02133
File Date: Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Plaintiff: Herb Pharm, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: John D. Ostrander, Tyler J. Volm of Elliott Ostrander & Preston, PC
Defendant: Martin P Gallagher, Medical Wellness Associates, P.C.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Contributory Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Janice M. Stewart

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – AXTS v. Arms Unlimited

27 Wednesday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ann L. Aiken, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Litigation Update, Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act, Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Plaintiff AXTS is an Oregon corporation based in Salem, Oregon. AXTS designs, manufactures, and sells firearm accessories, including the RAPTOR charging handle at issue in this litigation. Plaintiff Rainer Arms is a Washington-based company that co-brands the RAPTOR charging handle.

Defendant Arms Unlimited has allegedly sold counterfeit RAPTOR charging handles on eBay, Amazon and its own website. This lawsuit was brought against Arms Unlimited and its individual owners.

Stay tuned for updates.

FYI, a charging handle (see image below) is a device on a firearm which, when operated, results in the hammer or striker being cocked or moved to the ready position. The devices can vary significantly between firearms.

Charging Handle

AXTS Inc. et al v. Arms Unlimited Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 6:13-cv-02100-AA
File Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Plaintiff: AXTS Inc., Rainier Arms, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Jon P. Stride, David M. Weiler of Tonkon Torp LLP
Defendant: Arms Unlimited Inc., Daniel Shamie, Josh Salama
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trademark Counterfeiting, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken

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...