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:
The Defendants unsuccessfully applied to Plaintiff for use of the certification mark in connection with a product called “Flea Away DE.” Despite a refusal by Plaintiff, the Defendants used Plaintiff’s certification mark on their product.
in 2010. The following year, in July 2011, the city registered its trademark with the state of Oregon. It appears that the City started
trademark application. The recitation of services in the state trademark registration (as shown above, and on p. 9 of the Complaint below) is awkward. The only good or service listed on the application is, “The sign is a visual icon associated with Portland, and is seen all over the world when major events come to Portland.” In the space available to explain the mode or manner in which the mark is used, the City of Portland simply wrote, “An historical landmark of Portland, Oregon.” Vintage Roadside is alleging that the City of Portland was not using the mark in connection with the sale of goods and services and falsely certified that the mark was in use.
Oregon Intellectual Property Blog 