Flea Product Manufacturer sued over Unauthorized Use of Certification Mark



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.


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

Court Case Number6:16-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



BARISTA SERIES files False Designation of Origin Lawsuit against BARISTA BLEND


, , , ,

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.


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

Court Case Number3:16-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


Oregon Intellectual Property Law Firms

Listing of Oregon Intellectual Property Law Firms

[Note: This list will be continuously updated.]

Oregon IP Law Firms Twitter List

Solo Practitioners

Bartley F. Day – Portland
Gregory P. Barton – Portland
IdeaLegal, PC – Portland
Karen Dana Oster, LLC – Lake Oswego
KLF Legal – Portland
Lake Perriguey – Portland

IP Boutique Firms
Alleman Hall McCoy Russell Tuttle – Portland
Aspect Legal Group – Portland
Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. – Portland
Berkeley Law and Technology Group – Beaverton
Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, LLP – Portland
Chernoff Vilhauer L.L.P. – Portland
Dascenzo Intellectual Property Law, P.C. – Portland
Ganz Law, PC – Portland
Ireland & Ireland PC – Banks
Klarquist Sparkman, LLP – Portland
Kolisch Hartwell, PC – Portland
Marger Johnson & McCollom, PC – Portland
Mohr Intellectual Property Law Solutions, P.C. – Portland
Rylander & Associates PC – Portland
Sheasby & Spear LLP – Bend

Large General Business Firms with IP Groups (With Patent Prosecution)
Ater Wynne LLP – Portland
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt – Portland
Stoel Rives LLP – Portland

Large General Business Firms with IP Groups (No Patent Prosecution)
Bullivant Houser Bailey PC – Portland
Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP – Portland
Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue LLP – Portland
Garvey Schubert Barer – Portland
Holland & Knight, LLP – Portland
Lane Powell Spears Lubersky LLP – Portland
Miller Nash LLP – Portland
Perkins Coie – Portland
Preston Gates & Ellis LLP – Portland
Tonkon Torp LLP – Portland

Small General Business Firms with IP Practice
Elliott, Ostrander & Preston, P.C. – Portland
Harrang Long Gary Rudnick PC – Portland, Eugene, Salem
Inspiration Spaceship – Portland
Motchenbacher & Blattner LLP – Portland
The DuBoff Law Group, LLC – Portland
Swider Medeiros Haver LLP – Portland
Slinde Nelson Stanford – Portland

Oregon IP Law Firms Twitter List

[Lawyers, if your Oregon IP firm is missing from this list (or if it has been included in error), please leave a comment and I’ll add/remove it ASAP.]

Last Update: 2/25/2016

Deeks duck decoys cry fowl over Double Deeks trademark



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 Number6:16-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


USPTO upgrading website to https for user privacy


On August 12, 2016, the informational web pages currently found at http://www.uspto.gov will be moved to https://www.uspto.gov. The USPTO has decided to finally use HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure), currently the strongest privacy protection available for public web connections.

Those accessing web pages formerly found at http://www.uspto.gov will automatically be redirected to the pages’ new https location.

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 8.50.31 AM

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


, , , ,

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 Number3:16-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



Sewing patterns lead to copyright lawsuit; functionality doctrine invoked?


, , , ,

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


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


, , , , , , , ,

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




Yarn company sues to enforce Twisted trademark


, , , , , ,

The Plaintiff, based in Portland, Oregon, sells knitting, crochet, spinning, and weaving supplies using the trade name Twisted.

In April 2016, the Plaintiff learned that Defendants, a competitor based in Chelan, Washington, had recently changed their name from “Warehouse Woolery” to “Twisted Fine Yarn & Wool”. The Complaint (below) references several actual instances of confusion.

On June 9, 2016, after receiving Plaintiff’s letters, which put Defendants on notice of Plaintiff’s TWISTED marks and claim of infringement, Defendants filed a federal trademark application for TWISTED FINE YARN & WOOL. That action, unsurprisingly, prompted this trademark lawsuit and likely a trademark opposition. Stay tuned for updates.Screen Shot 2016-06-27 at 6.08.23 PM

Twisted LLC v. 3ZS LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-01259-BR
File Date: Friday, June 24, 2016
Plaintiff: Twisted, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Parna A. Mehrbani of Lane Powell PC
Defendant: 3ZS, LLC d/b/a Twisted Fine Yarn & Wool, Sandi Sandum
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Oregon, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Anna J. Brown


COAST SPAS v. WEST COAST SPAS…are you confused?


, , , , ,

Plaintiff has sold hot tubs and spa products under the COAST SPAS mark for 19 years.

They recently became aware that a competitor has been manufacturing and selling hot tubs and spas under the WEST COAST SPAS mark since 2011.

According to the Complaint (below), Plaintiff has encountered instances of actual confusion leading to lost sales.

Defendant’s website address, www.wcoastspas.com, is similar to the Plaintiff’s domain, www.coastspas.com.

Screen Shot 2016-06-23 at 9.08.17 AM

Coast Spas Manufacturing Inc. v. Marletto Manufacturing, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-01162-YY
File Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Plaintiff: Coast Spas Manufacturing Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: J. Christopher Carraway of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
Defendant: Marletto Manufacturing, Inc. d/b/a West Coast Spas
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Youlee Yim You