• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Intentional Interference with Economic Relations

Breach of Contract over Moisturizing Personal Lubricant Leads to Lawsuit

06 Monday Nov 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, False Designation of Origin, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations, Professional Negligence, Trademark Infringement, Unlawful Business Practices, Unlawful Trade Practices

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:

View this document on Scribd

Chinese Scientist Accused of Misappropriating Cow Feed Technology

17 Wednesday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations, Litigation Update, Michael J. McShane, Trade Secret Misappropriation

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:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Control Solutions v. Microdaq.com

02 Saturday May 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Civil Action by Private Party, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Injunctive Relief, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations, Interference with Prospective Business Advantage, Misrepresentation, Paul Papak, Remedies for Infringement, Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, Unlawful Trade Practices

Control Solutions is in the business of selling certified, calibrated thermometers and data “loggers,” devices that record temperature readings over time. MicroDAQ.com was allegedly running Google Adwords campaigns, such that an internet user searching on of Control Solutions’ trademarks, trade names and/or product names/numbers would receive as a search result a reference and hyperlink to MicrDAQ’s website and purchasing system instead of Control Solutions’. In March 2015, MicroDAQ.com’s sales & marketing manager replied to a cease and desist letter. In the reply, the manager admitted to running at least two such campaigns and promised to stop the campaigns. Control Solutions claims that the ad campaigns resulted in lost sales as well as lost future revenue since a portion of the company’s revenue is derived from recertifying devices sold to customers.

Control Solutions Inc. v. Microdaq.com Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00748-PK
File Date: Friday, May 01, 2015
Plaintiff: Control Solutions Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gano D. Lemoine III of Lemoine Law Firm
Defendant: Microdaq.com Inc., Does 1-10
Cause: Unlawful Business/Trade Practices, Civil Action by Private Party, Trademark Counterfeiting, Remedies for Infringement, Injunctive Relief, Interference with Prospective Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Federal Statutory False Designation of Origin, Misrepresentation in Commercial Advertising or Promotion
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Paul Papak

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 – Peace for Paul Foundation v. Andrew Young

18 Friday May 2012

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Defamation, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations, Paul Papak, Trademark Infringement

Peace for Paul Foundation, Inc. v. Mr. Andrew Young

Court Case Number:    3:12-cv-00887-PK
File Date:    Thursday, May 17, 2012
Plaintiff:     Peace for Paul Foundation, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel:     David L. Silverman – Attorney at Law
Defendant:     Mr. Andrew Young
Cause:    Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act, Trademark Infringement, Defamation, Intentional Interference with Economic Relations
Court:    Oregon District Court
Judge:     Magistrate Judge Paul Papak

View this document on Scribd

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
  • Follow Following
    • Oregon Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 147 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Oregon Intellectual Property Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...