Tag Archives: Breach of Contract

Software company sues Nike for breach of contract, software piracy

27 Friday Apr 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The Plaintiff in this action, Quest Software, Inc., is a California-based software company that “develops and supports software used by database professionals for cloud management, security, workforce mobility and data-driven insight.”

A January 2017 audit revealed that one of its customers, Oregon-based shoe and apparel giant Nike, had deployed Plaintiff’s software in excess of the scope allowed by the parties’ SLA. The Complaint also alleges that Nike “had used pirated keys to bypass the Quest License Key System.”

Per the Complaint (below), when confronted by Plaintiff about the unauthorized uses, Nike refused to purchase additional licenses, hence this lawsuit.

Quest Software, Inc. v. Nike Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:18-cv-00721-BR
File Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Plaintiff: Quest Software, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Thomas A. Lerner, Theresa H. Wang, Bradford J. Axel of Stokes Lawrence, P.S.
Defendant: Nike, Inc.
Causes: Breach of Contract, Copyright Infringement, Violation of Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Anna J. Brown

Complaint:

Breach of Contract over Moisturizing Personal Lubricant Leads to Lawsuit

06 Monday Nov 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff, a Eugene, Oregon-based manufacturer of natural and organic intimacy and feminine hygiene products, “brings this action because Defendants have conspired to sabotage [Plaintiff]’s distribution in Canada, and then to use [Plaintiff]’s proprietary, confidential business information and intellectual property to launch a brand of products nearly identical to those marketed and sold by [Plaintiff].”

Plaintiff sells moisturizing personal lubricant products under the brand names RESTORE, ALMOST NAKED and GUILTY PLEASURE.

The dispute arises from a contractual relationship gone bad. See the Complaint (below) for the details.

Good Clean Love, Inc. v. Aurium Pharma Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 6:17-cv-01712-JR
File Date: October 26, 2017
Plaintiff: Good Clean Love, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: David P. Cooper, Owen W. Dukelow, Desmond J. Kidney of Kolisch Hartwell, P.C.
Defendants: Aurium Pharma Inc., Rowland Global LLC, Edward Rowland
Causes: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Breach of Contract, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations, Unlawful Business Practices, Unlawful Trade Practices, Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Professional Negligence
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Jolie A. Russo

Complaint:

Unauthorized UtilitySport® Trailers Allegedly Sold in Oregon

13 Wednesday Sep 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This lawsuit arises out of the manufacture, importation, offer for sale, sale, and distribution in the United States of unauthorized copies of UtilitySport® trailers by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is a utility trailer kit manufacturer located in Grants Pass, Oregon. It owns federal trademark registrations for UtilityMate® and UtilitySport®.

In 2011, Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants for the manufacture of trailers. The Defendants are now accused of manufacturing and selling trailers based on Plaintiff’s designs and using Plaintiff’s trademarks without permission and without compensating Plaintiff.

Trailers Intl LLC et al v. STC International (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. et al.

Court Case Number: 3:17-cv-01432-SI
File Date: Monday, September 11, 2017
Plaintiff: Trailers Intl LLC, Vincent L. Webb
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen J. Joncus of Joncus Law LLC
Defendant: STC International (Shanghai) Co. Ltd., Rockford Commercial Warehouse, Inc., Power Equipment Direct Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael H. Simon

Complaint:

Killer Burger sues former owner over stolen hamburgers

08 Tuesday Aug 2017

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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:

Trademark and Unfair Competition lawsuit filed over expired software license

14 Friday Jul 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

This lawsuit involves the registered trademarks LEXILE, LEXILE FRAMEWORK, LEXILE ANALYZER and METAMETRICS.

The parties previously had a license by which the Defendants could use Plaintiff’s software, but it apparently expired on June 30, 2017.

MetaMetrics, Inc. v. NWEA et al.

Court Case Number: 3:17-cv-01059-BR
File Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017
Plaintiff: MetaMetrics, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Jeff Pitzer of Pitzer Law
Defendant: NWEA (f/k/a Evaluation Association), Matthew Chapman, Jeff Strickler
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Copyright Infringement, Oregon Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Oregon Trademark Dilution, Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law False Advertising, Breach of Contract, Tort of Conversion
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Anna J. Brown

Complaint:

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

01 Friday Jul 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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

Complaint:

Exhibits:

 

adidas sues Ecco over “Three-Stripe” Trademark

25 Monday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The adidas “Three-Stripe” crusade continues, this time against Ecco Shoes.

Screen Shot 2016-04-25 at 7.48.57 AMClick the Adidas tag on this post for other “Three-Stripe” litigation.

adidas America, Inc. et al v. ECCO USA, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:2016-cv-00684
File Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Plaintiff: adidas America, Inc., adidas AG
Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel P. Larsen of Ater Wynne LLP
Defendant: Ecco USA, Inc., Ecco SKO A/S
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael H. Simon

Complaint:

Chinese Scientist Accused of Misappropriating Cow Feed Technology

17 Wednesday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

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:

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

17 Sunday Jan 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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:

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Leatherman Tool Group v. Gogotech II

10 Tuesday Jun 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Leatherman Tool Group, an Oregon corporation, manufactures and distributes engineered multi-tools, pocket tools, and knives that are designed for outdoor, tactical, professional, and general use. Leatherman promotes and sells its products to consumers directly both online at leatherman.com, as well as in its retail store, The Leatherman Store, located in Portland, Oregon.

Leatherman is the owner of multiple federal trademark registrations for LEATHERMAN.

Defendant, a New York corporation, operates factoryoutletstore.com, an online retail site that sells multi-tools, pocket tools and knives that are manufactured by Leatherman.

Defendant is neither an authorized distributor nor an authorized reseller of Leatherman’s products, hence the lawsuit.

Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. Gogotech II, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00920
File Date: Friday, June 06, 2014
Plaintiff: Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stuart R. Dunwoody, Kaley L. Fendall, John F. McGrory Jr. of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Defendant: Gogotech II, LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Paul Papak