• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Common Law Unfair Competition

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – adidas America et al v. Skechers USA

24 Thursday Sep 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, John Jelderks, State Trademark Dilution, Trade Dress Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Unfair Competition, Unfair Trade Practices

adidas has a long history with Skechers. In 1994, adidas filed suit for trademark infringement over Skechers‘s Karl Kani footwear. The companies entered into a settlement agreement the following year (the “1995 Agreement,” attached below). Under this agreement, Skechers acknowledged that adidas is the exclusive owner of the THREE STRIPE DESIGN, agreed not to use the THREE STRIPE DESIGN or any mark confusingly similar thereto, and agreed to cease distribution of its KARL KANI sport shoe.

Between 2008 and 2013, adidas and Skechers allegedly entered into five separate confidential settlement agreements about infringements and dilutions of the Three-Stripe Mark. This most recent complaint from adidas claims that “notwithstanding the 1995 Agreement and the subsequent 2008-2013 Agreements–and in continuing, blatant disregard of adidas‘s rights–Skechers yet again is . . . selling footwear . . . bearing a confusingly similar imitation of the adidas Marks.”

adidas is especially aggrieved about a shoe that is (allegedly) confusingly similar to their famous Stan Smith shoe and claims that Skechers intends their “Stan Smith Knock-Off” shoe to be confusingly similar to the adidas Trade Dress and offers evidence that the Skechers website included the terms “stan smith” and “adidas original” in the source code.

adidas America Inc. et al v. Skechers USA Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-01741-JE
File Date: Monday, September 14, 2015
Plaintiff: adidas America Inc., adidas AG, Adidas International Marketing B.V.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen M. Feldman of Perkins Coie LLP
Defendant: Skechers USA Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark and Trade Dress Dilution, State Trademark Dilution with respect to the Three-Stripe Mark, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge John Jelderks

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

1995 Agreement:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – adidas America v. Forever 21

18 Tuesday Aug 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Michael H. Simon, State Trademark Dilution, Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Unfair Competition, Unfair Trade Practices

Adidas has filed a complaint alleging that clothing retailer, Forever 21, and clothing manufacturer/distributor, Central Mills, have been selling counterfeit adidas clothing. In the complaint, adidas alleges Defendants have been importing and selling “apparel bearing three stripes that constitute counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark,” and included pictures of two examples (see Complaint below).

In 2013, Forever 21 and Central Mills were sued by fashion photograher, Mark Hunter, for copyright infringement. Hunter alleged that Defendants used one of his photographs on clothing without authorization. That case was settled out of court less than four months after the complaint was filed.

adidas America Inc. et al v. Forever 21 Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-01559
File Date: Monday, August 17, 2015
Plaintiff: adidas America Inc., adidas AG
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen M. Feldman of Perkins Coie LLP
Defendant: Forever 21 Inc., Central Mills Inc.
Cause: Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, State Trademark Dilution
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael H. Simon

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Gilt Inc. v. Gilt Groupe Inc.

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anna J. Brown, Cancellation of Trademarks, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Unfair Competition, Infringement of Unregistered Mark, Injury to Business Reputation, Litigation Update, State Trademark Dilution, Unjust Enrichment

Plaintiffs have used the GILT trademark in connection with the sale of unique, sustainable, and hand-selected pieces of vintage and antique jewelry and related items since 1994. Around 2010-2011, Defendant began using the GILT mark in connection with jewelry, first for the sale of modern jewelry and later, in or about 2011-2012, in connection with the sale of estate jewelry.

In April 2012, Plaintiffs filed applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to register GILT and GILT JEWELRY for “mail order services featuring jewelry; retail jewelry stores.” The USPTO issued office actions refusing registration, citing a likelihood of confusion with Defendant’s U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3920768 and 3967967 for GILT MAN and GILT MANUAL in connection with “On-line retail store services featuring luxury and fashion clothing, apparel, shoes, belts, clothing accessories, pens, lighters, desk sets, tie clips, cuff links, skin care products, jewelry, sports equipment, wine, liquor, and art sold at discount prices.”

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have brought this action for trademark infringement and several other claims, including cancellation of Defendant’s trademark registrations.

Gilt Inc. et al v. Gilt Groupe Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01609-BR
File Date: Friday, October 10, 2014
Plaintiff: Gilt Inc., Paula Bixel
Plaintiff Counsel: John F. Neupert, Elizabeth A. Tedesco Milesnick of Miller Nash LLP
Defendant: Gilt Groupe Inc.
Cause: Infringement of Unregistered Mark, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, State Trademark Dilution, Injury to Business Reputation, Unjust Enrichment, Cancellation of Trademarks
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Anna J. Brown

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – North Sister Publishing v. Richard Schefren et al

01 Monday Sep 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Copyright Infringement, Litigation Update, Misappropriation, Statutory Unlawful Business and Trade Practices, Thomas M. Coffin, Unjust Enrichment

This lawsuit involves the unauthorized reproduction of excerpts from a literary work entitled “Work the System: The Simple Mechanics of Making More and Working Less.”

North Sister Publishing Inc. et al v. Richard Schefren et al

Court Case Number: 6:14-cv-01395-TC
File Date: Friday, August 29, 2014
Plaintiff: North Sister Publishing Inc., Work The System Academy LLC, Work The System Consultants Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Robert A. Swider, Michael D. Long of Swider Haver LLP
Defendant: Richard Schefren, Schefren Publishing LLC
Cause: Federal Copyright Infringement, Statutory Unlawful Business and Trade Practices, Common Law Unfair Competition, Misappropriation, Unjust Enrichment
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Under A Foot Plant v. Exterior Design

28 Thursday Aug 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ann L. Aiken, Common Law Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, Litigation Update, Misappropriation, Statutory Unlawful Trade Practice, Unjust Enrichment

This lawsuit involves copyrighted photographs of “perennial plants that are conducive to foot traffic.” Defendant allegedly acknowledged infringement of Plaintiff’s photographs on multiple occasions but would not cease the infringement.

Stay tuned for updates.

Under A Foot Plant Co. v. Exterior Design Inc.

Court Case Number: 6:14-cv-01371-AA
File Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Plaintiff: Under A Foot Plant Co.
Plaintiff Counsel: Robert A. Swider, Michael D. Long of Swider Haver LLP
Defendant: Exterior Design Inc.
Cause: Federal Copyright Infringement, Statutory Unlawful Business and Trade Practices, Common Law Unfair Competition, Misappropriation, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Legit Organics v. Celisac

15 Friday Aug 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Legit Organics LLC v. Celisac LLC

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01297
File Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Plaintiff: Legit Organics LLC
Plaintiff Counsel:
Defendant: Celisac LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael W. Mosman

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – AutoBidMaster v. Alpine Auto Gallery et al

11 Friday Jul 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Action to Pierce Corporate Veil, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Cyberpiracy, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, John V. Acosta, Litigation Update, Unjust Enrichment

Plaintiff operates an online auction marketplace at the domain autobidmaster.com. Defendant, a competitor, began using the domain autobidmaser.com and autobidmater.com to redirect traffic to its own website.

AutoBidMaster LLC v. Alpine Auto Gallery LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01083
File Date: Monday, July 07, 2014
Plaintiff: AutoBidMaster LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Nathaniel L. Funk of Barker Martin PS
Defendant: Alpine Auto Gallery LLC, Vehiko LLC, Edward Agabs, John Does 1-5
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Cyberpiracy, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Action to Pierce Corporate Veil
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: John V. Acosta

View this document on Scribd

 

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

10 Tuesday Jun 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Advertising, False Designation of Origin, Litigation Update, Paul Papak, Trademark Infringement

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

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Leatherman Tool Group v. Armitage Hardware and Building Supply

29 Thursday May 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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.

800px-Leatherman_Super_Tool_OpenDefendant, an Illinois corporation, owns and operates both Armitage Direct and leathermantool.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. Armitage Hardware and Building Supply, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00823-MO
File Date: Monday, May 19, 2014
Plaintiff: Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Kaley L. Fendall, John F. McGrory Jr. of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Defendant: Armitage Hardware and Building Supply, Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Cybersquatting, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition
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
← 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...