• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Federal Unfair Competition

Oregon Litigation Update – adidas America v. Reliable Knitting Works

02 Thursday Jul 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, Paul Papak, State Trademark Dilution, Trademark Infringement, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

Adidas has filed a trademark complaint against Reliable Knitting Works, a Wisconsin based company doing business as Reliable of Milwaukee. Adidas is alleging that Muk Luks, one of Reliable’s brands, sells a shoe that, Adidas alleges, “bears parallel stripes on the mid-foot portion of the upper in a manner likely to be confused with adidas’s famous Three-Stripe Mark.”

Adidas is asking the Court to: “(a) permanently enjoin Reliable from marketing or selling footwear bearing confusingly similar two-, three-, and four-stripe imitations of the Three-Stripe Mark; (b) award adidas monetary damages and to treble that award; (c) require Reliable to disgorge all profits from sales of the Infringing Footwear; and (d) award adidas punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.” 

adidas America, Inc. et al v. Reliable Knitting Works, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-01217-PK
File Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Plaintiff: adidas America, Inc., adidas AG
Plaintiff Counsel: Kristina J. Holm and Stephen M. Feldman of Perkins Coie, LLP
Defendant: Reliable Knitting Works, Inc.
Cause: 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: Magistrate Judge Paul Papak

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – adidas America v. Marc Jacobs International

09 Thursday Apr 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, Paul Papak, State Trademark Dilution, Trademark Infringement, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

Does trademark protection of Adidas’ famous “Three-Stripe Mark” also extend to four stripes? Fashion designer Marc Jacobs is ready to debate that question in Oregon federal court.

Some media coverage of the lawsuit, with images: de zeen, NY Post

Stay tuned for updates.

adidas America Inc. et al v. Marc Jacobs International LLC

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00582
File Date: Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Plaintiff: adidas America Inc., adidas AG
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen M. Feldman, Kristina J. Holm of Perkins Coie LLP
Defendant: Marc Jacobs International LLC
Cause: 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: Magistrate Judge Paul Papak

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 Trademark Litigation Update – Rudy’s Barbershop v. Rudy’s Barber Shop

24 Wednesday Sep 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Business Relations, Litigation Update, Michael W. Mosman

Plaintiff has been operating hairdressing salons under the RUDY’S mark since as early as 1992. Plaintiff’s first location was in Seattle, Washington and he has since opened fifteen (15) additional locations in Seattle, Portland, Oregon, Los Angeles, California and New York, New York. Plaintiff owns a federal registration for RUDY’S in connection with “Hairdressing Salons, Beauty Salons and Haircutting Services.”

Defendant has operated a barbershop called Rudy’s Barber Shop in Portland, Oregon since 2009.

According to the Complaint, Defendant has “on at least one occasion, received a telephone call from a customer of one of Plaintiff’s two Portland, Oregon locations seeking to make an appointment for services. Instead of re-directing the call to Plaintiff, Defendants informed Plaintiff’s customer that the specific stylist no longer worked at the store and, further, that the stylist was currently in a rehabilitation facility due to an abuse of drugs or alcohol.”

Rudy’s Barbershop LLC v. Rudy’s Barber Shop LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01481-MO
File Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Plaintiff: Rudy’s Barber Shop LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Kevin M. Hayes of Klarquist Sparkman LLP
Defendant: Rudy’s Barber Shop LLC, Rudolph Valentino Martinez
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Business Relations
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

Complaint:

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 – B.C. Marketing Concepts v. The Sessions Law Firm

09 Wednesday Jul 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, Michael H. Simon, State Law Product Disparagement, State Trademark Dilution, State Trademark Infringement, State Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations

Session, Sessions LawHere’s yet another trademark lawsuit involving a brewery. This time, however, the defendant isn’t another brewery but a DUI attorney using an allegedly confusingly similar logo.

Plaintiff B. C. Marketing, Inc. is an Oregon corporation based in Hood River, Oregon. Plaintiff does business as Full Sail Brewing Company. Since at least as early as 2005, Plaintiff has been selling beer under the trademark SESSION, including a distinctive shield logo trademark.

Defendant is an Atlanta, Georgia-based DUI attorney that has been using a similar logo to promote his legal services to “beer drinkers.”

Take a look at the two logos. Confusingly similar? Note that Defendant has been using the logo on paper bags “designed and distributed for the express purpose of holding a can or bottle of beer.” (See image in Complaint below.) While this may have seemed like a cute marketing idea at the time, surely the Defendant can’t be so invested in his logo as to justify litigation in federal court. I expect this lawsuit will be resolved fairly quickly…stay tuned for updates.

B.C. Marketing Concepts Inc. v. The Sessions Law Firm LLC

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01087
File Date: Tuesday, July 08, 2014
Plaintiff: B.C. Marketing Concepts Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Charles H. DeVoe, Thomas J. Romano of Kolisch Hartwell PC
Defendant: The Sessions Law Firm LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, State Trademark Infringement, State Unfair Competition, State Trademark Dilution, State Law Product Disparagement, Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael H. Simon

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

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 – Idylwilde v. Umpqua Feather Merchants

13 Wednesday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Conversion, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Contracts and Prospective Economic Advantage, Litigation Update, Marco A. Hernandez, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Trade Dress Infringement, Trademark and Trade Dress Dilution, Unjust Enrichment

Portland-based Idylwilde designs, manufactures, markets, brands, and sells flies for the global fly fishing industry. According to the Complaint, “Idylwilde sells to a very sophisticated buyer of flies where the stylized portrayal of insect species, sex, and maturity level of the hatch make a difference the customer is willing to pay for based on the fly designer’s style.”

The Complaint is long but it has a little bit of everything so it’s worth a read. This will be an interesting case to monitor.

Idylwilde, Inc. et al v. Umpqua Feather Merchants, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-02009-HZ
File Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Plaintiff: Idylwilde, Inc., Zach Mertens
Plaintiff Counsel: Katherine R. Heekin of The Heekin Law Firm
Defendant: Umpqua Feather Merchants, LLC, Mirabel, Inc., Bien Tan, Does 1 through 10, Inclusive
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, and Unfair Competition, Trademark and Trade Dress Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Intentional Interference with Contracts and Prospective Economic Advantage, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, Unjust Enrichment, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Marco A. Hernandez

View this document on Scribd

 

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – All Care in Home Support Service v. Mid Rogue Independent Physician Association

12 Tuesday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cancellation of Federal Trademark Registrations, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Federal Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, Oregon State Trademark Infringement, Owen M. Panner

All Care in Home Support Service, Inc. v. Mid Rogue Independent Physician Association, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-02004-PA
File Date: Monday, November 11, 2013
Plaintiff: All Care in Home Support Service, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Peter E. Heuser, Matthew R. Wilmot of Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt PC
Defendant: Mid Rogue Independent Physician Association, Inc.
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, Oregon State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Cancellation of Federal Trademark Registrations
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Owen M. Panner

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...