• About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Oregon IP Resources

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Oregon Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Litigation Update

Deeks duck decoys cry fowl over Double Deeks trademark

18 Thursday Aug 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Litigation Update, Thomas M. Coffin

Plaintiff, based in Salem, Oregon, has been using the registered trademark DEEKS in connection with hunting decoys since the late 1960s.

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 6.29.08 AM

Defendants began selling duck hunting decoys in 2014 or 2015 using a DOUBLE DEEKS trademark.

Asserting a likelihood of confusion, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit with a single trademark infringement claim.

Note that the Double Deeks website has already been removed so this matter may be resolved soon.

ISA Corporation v. Double Deeks, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 6:16-cv-01667-TC
File Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Plaintiff: ISA Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D. Crowell of Crowell Law
Defendant: Double Deeks, LLC, Approved Graphics Design, LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Thomas M. Coffin

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Sewing patterns lead to copyright lawsuit; functionality doctrine invoked?

06 Wednesday Jul 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Contributory Copyright Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Litigation Update, Michael J. McShane, Vicarious Copyright Infringement

This copyright lawsuit arises from the alleged infringement of sewing patterns. The Plaintiff, based in Eugene, Oregon, has sold sewing patterns since 1982. The Defendants, based in Georgia, are an online competitor allegedly selling unauthorized copies of the Plaintiff’s patterns.

Note that clothing design is usually held to be functional, and thus does not qualify for copyright protection. However, this lawsuit involves the patterns (drawings) themselves, not the clothing design shown therein.

Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. – Copyright.gov

I think there can still be an argument made that the sewing patterns do not qualify for protection under 102(b), that they are an illustrated procedure or process for making a dress.

17 U.S. Code § 102 (b)

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Judge for yourself in the Complaint (below) but many of the drawings have little ornamental design elements beyond the utilitarian, and thus unprotectable, functionality required to accurately and adequately show someone how to make the dress.

Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 9.35.57 AM

Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 9.08.48 AM

Ranita Corporation v. Beamer et al

Court Case Number: 6:16-cv-01368-MC
File Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Plaintiff: Ranita Corporation d/b/a Sure-Fit Designs
Plaintiff Counsel: Jacob S. Gill of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.
Defendant: Oticca Beamer, Fit & Fashion LLC, Beamer & Associates d/b/a Fit & Fashion
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Copyright Infringement, Contributory Copyright Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael J. McShane

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

COAST SPAS v. WEST COAST SPAS…are you confused?

23 Thursday Jun 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Youlee Yim You

Plaintiff has sold hot tubs and spa products under the COAST SPAS mark for 19 years.

They recently became aware that a competitor has been manufacturing and selling hot tubs and spas under the WEST COAST SPAS mark since 2011.

According to the Complaint (below), Plaintiff has encountered instances of actual confusion leading to lost sales.

Defendant’s website address, www.wcoastspas.com, is similar to the Plaintiff’s domain, www.coastspas.com.

Screen Shot 2016-06-23 at 9.08.17 AM

Coast Spas Manufacturing Inc. v. Marletto Manufacturing, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-01162-YY
File Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Plaintiff: Coast Spas Manufacturing Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: J. Christopher Carraway of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
Defendant: Marletto Manufacturing, Inc. d/b/a West Coast Spas
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Youlee Yim You

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

 

Simple Finance files trademark lawsuit against Simple RTO, alleges website mimicry

10 Tuesday May 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anna J. Brown, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, State Trademark Dilution

This trademark dispute involves the trademarks SIMPLE and SIMPLE FINANCE in connection with financial services.

In addition to using confusingly similar trademarks, the Defendant is also accused of mimicking the design of Plaintiff’s website.

Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 6.38.44 AM

Simple Finance Technology Corp. v. Simple RTO, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00801-BR
File Date: Monday, May 9, 2016
Plaintiff: Simple Finance Technology Corp.
Plaintiff Counsel: Kristina J. Holm, William C. Rava of Perkins Coie LLP
Defendant: Simple RTO, LLC d/b/a Simple Finance
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, State Dilution
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Anna J. Brown

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Portland Retirement Community files Trademark Lawsuit against Residents Foundation, asserts Banking Violations

05 Thursday May 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

The Plaintiff in this action, Willamette View, is a 60-year old continuing care retirement community in Portland, Oregon. Plaintiff owns no federal or state trademark registrations.

Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 8.07.12 AM

Since 1967, the Defendant, Willamette View Foundation, has provided financial management and fiduciary services to Plaintiff’s senior residents.

From its founding in 1967 through January 2016, Willamette View Foundation used its corporate name, Willamette View Foundation, as the trade name with which it held itself out to and conducted business with the public. In February 2016, it began using a new trade name, The Residents Foundation–Willamette View. While there is almost certainly more going on behind the scenes between these two related-but-unrelated organizations, that name change set the stage for the current trademark dispute.

In addition to the trademark quarrel, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant may also be in violation of Oregon’s Banking Act.

Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 7.54.45 AM

Willamette View, Inc. v. Willamette View Foundation dba The Residents Foundation-Willamette View

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00778-MO
File Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Plaintiff: Willamette View, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stuart R. Dunwood, Kaley L. Fendall of Davis Wright Tremaine
Defendant: Willamette View Foundation d/b/a The Residents Foundation-Willamette View
Cause: False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael W. Mosman

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

 

 

Religious Publishing Company sued for Unauthorized Publication of Hymns

18 Monday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright Infringement, Litigation Update, Marco A. Hernandez

This copyright action involving religious hymns arises from an alleged breach of a prior license agreement.

Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 7.03.38 AM

Oregon Catholic Press v. Ambrosetti et al

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00651
File Date: Friday, April 15, 2016
Plaintiff: Oregon Catholic Press
Plaintiff Counsel: Leonard D. DuBoff of The DuBoff Law Group
Defendant: Ambrosetti et al
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Judge: Marco A. Hernandez

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Oregon hosts trademark dispute between “Highbrow” websites

30 Wednesday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cancellation of Trademark, Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Litigation Update, Stacie F. Beckerman, State Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and No Unfair Competition

The Plaintiff in this action, Highbrow, LLC, seeks a declaratory judgment that its use of the “HIGHBROW” trademark in connection with an online beauty website does not infringe or otherwise violate the rights of Defendant Highbrow Magazine, LLC.

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 6.19.08 AM

Highbrow Magazine is a “politically liberal, general-interest magazine covering News & Politics, Media, Arts & Entertainment, Food, and Travel.”

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 6.17.09 AM

According to the Complaint (below), Highbrow was threatened with litigation by Highbrow Magazine and thus preemptively filed this declaratory action in Oregon. A series of discussions over a non-litigious resolution were unsuccessful.

There is some interesting language in the final demand letter from Highbrow Magazine (see Exhibit 5) that arguably forced the hand of Highbrow:

Note that we have also sent this letter to your domain registrar and Web hosting company, which means that they may be liable for contributory infringement for any continuing trademark infringement subsequent to receipt of this notice.

By bringing the registrar and web host into the situation, Highbrow was left with really no other option but to seek a court’s declaration of non-infringement. Better in Oregon than New York for many reasons for the Portland-based Highbrow.

[Update – The parties settled and a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed on 5/10/16]

Highbrow, LLC v. Highbrow Magazine, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00544
File Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Plaintiff: Highbrow, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Susan Bristow-Ford of Bristow-Ford Law
Defendant: Highbrow Magazine, LLC
Cause: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Cancellation of Trademark, State Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and No Unfair Competition
Judge: Stacie F. Beckerman

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Exhibit 5:

View this document on Scribd

Virtual Concierge App Concierge ToGo involved in trademark lawsuit against Conciergo

28 Monday Mar 2016

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, Federal Trademark Infringement, Litigation Update, Michael H. Simon, Unlawful Trade Practices

In addition to using an allegedly confusingly similar trademark (Plaintiff’s “Concierge ToGo®” vs. Defendant’s “Conciergo“), Defendant is also alleged to have passed itself off to one of Plaintiff’s hotel clients as having an affiliation with Plaintiff.

Both parties provide virtual concierge services, allowing hotel guests to tour their hotel, discover hotel amenities, contact guest services, and obtain information on local attractions and restaurants.

Screen Shot 2016-03-28 at 6.58.41 AM

S&B Associates, Inc. v. Guest Impressions, Inc.

Court Case Number:3:16-cv-00519
File Date: Friday, March 25, 2016
Plaintiff: S&B Associates. Inc. d/b/a HospitalityVision
Plaintiff Counsel: Scott D. Eads of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
Defendant: Guest Impressions, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unlawful Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Michael H. Simon

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Portland restaurant Namu Korean and Hawaiian files for declaratory relief against San Francisco-based Namu Gaji

21 Monday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cancellation of Trademark Registration, Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Litigation Update, Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Paul Papak, Permanent Injunction

Food fight!

Namu Inc., operating in three Portland locations as Namu Korean and Hawaiian or Namu Killer Korean BBQ, has been serving Hawaiian-Korean barbeque since 2010.

In January 2016, the Portland company (“Namu PDX”) received a trademark cease-and-desist letter from Namu Gaji, a San Francisco restaurant (“Namu SFO”…which has a very wooden dining room, seriously check it out). Namu SFO’s registrations claim a date of first use of December 2006 for a “namu logo” and April 2012 for their current operating name, “Namu Gaji.”

The English translation of “namu” is “tree” or “wood”.

Rather than meet Namu SFO’s demands, Namu PDX has instead decided to seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement in Oregon federal court. Namu PDX goes a step further and requests that Namu SFO also be prevented from advertising or marketing in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, Namu PDX seeks cancellation of Namu SFO’s federal registrations, based on some apparent problems with the owner listed in the applications.

The two NAMUs, one in Portland, NAMU PDX, and one in San Francisco, NAMU SFO, have coexisted peacefully for years. This is largely due to the fact that the Bay Area and the Northwest are distinct geographic regions for the purpose of gastronomic tourism. Where San Francisco is home to many ultra-gourmet restaurants, Portland prides itself on its accessibility to international style street food.

Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 7.33.30 AM

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 7.31.29 AM

Namu Inc. v. Namu Haight, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00453-PK
File Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Plaintiff: Namu Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Darian A. Stanford, Scott T. Rennie, J. Curtis Edmondson of Slinde Nelson Stanford
Defendant: Namu Haight LLC, David Lee
Cause: Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of Trademark, Cancellation of Trademark Registration, Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Paul Papak

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

adidas “Three-Stripe” Trademark enforced against Four-Stripe Footwear

08 Tuesday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Adidas, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, Marco A. Hernandez, State Trademark Dilution, State Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

The adidas “Three-Stripe” crusade continues, this time against four stripes…

Screen Shot 2016-03-08 at 10.37.29 AM

 

Click the Adidas tag on this post for other “Three-Stripe” litigation.

adidas America, Inc. et al v. Athletic Propulsion Labs, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00415-HZ
File Date: Monday, March 7, 2016
Plaintiff: adidas America, Inc., adidas AG
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen M. Feldman of Perkins Coie LLP
Defendant: Athletic Propulsion Labs
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, State Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, State Trademark Dilution
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Marco A. Hernandez

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd
← Older posts

Categories

Create a free website or 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...