Tag Archives: False Designation of Origin

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Legit Organics v. Celisac

15 Friday Aug 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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

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

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – iovation v. IOvations

29 Thursday May 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff iovation, based in Portland, Oregon, sells computer security and fraud prevention services to customers internationally. Plaintiff has used the term IOVATION as a trade name and trademark since at least as early as June 1, 2004.iovation Screen Shot

Defendant IOvations, of Massachusetts, was organized on July 12, 2004. According to the Complaint, IOvations first limited the services it offered under the IOVATIONS mark to digital data storage solutions. More recently, IOvations has expanded the services it offers under the mark to include computer “network and security solutions.”

Given the similarity, both visually and aurally, between the IOVATION and IOVATIONS trademarks, the closely-related goods and services that the parties sell, and the parties’ overlapping channels of trade and classes of consumers, Plaintiff alleges that actual confusion between the parties and their respective marks is likely to continue and increase.

Failure to negotiate mutually-agreeable terms of coexistence led to this lawsuit.

iovation, Inc. v. IOvations, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00838
File Date: Thursday, May 22, 2014
Plaintiff: iovation, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stuart R. Dunwoody of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Defendant: IOvations, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Paul Papak

 

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

29 Thursday May 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.

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

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Cyber Acoustics v. Shenhen Fenda Technology

30 Wednesday Apr 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Cyber Acoustics, LLC et al v. Shenhen Fenda Technology Co. Ltd.

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00695-AC
File Date: Monday, April 28, 2014
Plaintiff: Cyber Acoustics, LLC, Cyber Acoustics HK Ltd.
Plaintiff Counsel: J. Peter Staples, Susan D. Pitchford of Chernoff Vilhauer McClung & Stenzel LLP
Defendant: Shenhen Fenda Technology Co. Ltd.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Breach of Contract
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Nike v. DBV Distribution

12 Sunday Jan 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – AXTS v. Arms Unlimited

27 Wednesday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Pacific Cargo Control v. Quality Chain Corporation

02 Wednesday Oct 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Pacific Cargo Control, Inc. v. Quality Chain Corporation

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01750-MO
File Date: Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Plaintiff: Pacific Cargo Control, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Hillary A. Brooks, Delfina S. Homen of Marger Johnson & McCollom, PC
Defendant: Quality Chain Corporation
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – City of Portland v. Romtec

20 Tuesday Aug 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Portland Loo v. Sidewalk ToiletThe first Portland Loo was installed on December 8, 2008, “to enormous media attention.” Portland has used the Loo to capitalize on its reputation as a “green” innovator and has sold the Loo to various municipalities including: Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska, and Victoria and Nanaimo in British Columbia, Canada. The City is currently negotiating to sell Portland Loos to Esquimalt, British Columbia, San Diego, California, and Seattle, Washington.

In January 2013, Portland city officials were informed by an official with the City of Cincinnati, that Defendant Romtec was manufacturing and marketing for sale a restroom substantially and strikingly similar to the Portland Loo called the “Sidewalk Restroom.” Romtec first introduced its Sidewalk Restroom in late 2012.

Portland alleges that Romtec’s Sidewalk Restroom is “substantially and strikingly similar to the distinctive Portland Loo in its total overall expression, appearance, configuration, size, description, and promotion and features key elements that appear to have been copied from the Protected Work including, but not limited to: (a) the placement, size, position, and dimensions of its louvers; (b) the choice of metal wall panels; (c) use of an anti-graffiti powder coating; (d) the stripped down plumbing that facilitates its set-in-place installation; (e) placement of the sink on the exterior of the unit; and (f) dedicated space for art and advertising.”

This lawsuit was brought by Portland to prevent the sale of the Sidewalk Restroom. More background is included in the Complaint (below). Stay tuned for updates.

City of Portland Oregon v. Romtec, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01453-MO
File Date: Monday, August 19, 2013
Plaintiff: City of Portland Oregon
Plaintiff Counsel: Lisa M. Gramp – Attorney at Law
Defendant: Romtec, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Dilution, Oregon Uniform Trade Practices Act
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

Oregon Brewing Co. sues D.C. restaurant, Rogue 24, for trademark infringement

12 Sunday May 2013

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Oregon Brewing Co., otherwise known as Rogue Ales, has sued a D.C. restaurant, Rogue 24, for trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting and trademark cyber-squatting, among other claims.

The Washington Times has more information about the parties and the Complaint is below. Stay tuned for updates.