Tag Archives: Trademark Infringement

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Trailers International LLC v. Xiaofei Yang

05 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by in Copyright, District of Oregon, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Oregon, Trade Secret, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Vince Webb and his company, Trailers International (formerly UtilityMate), previously filed suit against Zhuhai Sharp-Group Enterprise Co. Ltd. (aka Jumbo Tools & Equipment), a Chinese trading company, for manufacturing counterfeits of its UtilityMate® and UtilitySport® trailers. Jumbo was, at one time, authorized to manufacture trailers for Webb’s company but now it is alleged that Jumbo is making and distributing counterfeits, primarily through Altocraft USA, Inc. Now, Webb is filing suit against XiaoFei Yang, president and CEO of Jumbo.

Trailers International LLC et al v. XiaoFei Yang

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00767-SI
File Date: Monday, May 04, 2015
Plaintiff: Trailers International LLC, Vincent L. Webb
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen J. Joncus and Xavier A. Clark of Klarquist Sparkman LLP
Defendant:XiaoFei Yang
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Counterfeiting, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition (Passing Off), Unfair Business Practices, Conversion, Trade Secret Misappropriation
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael H. Simon

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

02 Saturday May 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

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

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

09 Thursday Apr 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Kool Pak v. Kool Trans

26 Friday Dec 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Plaintiff Kool Pak, based in Lake Oswego, Oregon, seeks to protect its family of “Kool” trademarks in connection with transcontinental refrigerated trucking services. Plaintiff has used the Kool Pak mark for over 45 years.

Kool PakDefendant, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, entered the refrigerated trucking market in June 2014, operating under the “Kooltrans” mark.

Unable to negotiate an agreeable resolution via attorney dealings, the Plaintiff now seeks the Court’s determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks.

Kool Pak LLC v. Kool Trans LLC

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-02036-SI
File Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Plaintiff: Kool Pak LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: J. Peter Staples, Susan D. Pitchford of Chernoff Vilhauer McClung & Stenzel LLP
Defendant: Kool Trans LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Federal Statutory False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael H. Simon

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – ABS-CBN Corporation v. Jeffrey Ashby et al

11 Monday Aug 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

ABS-CBN Corporation et al v. Jeffrey Ashby et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-01275-HU
File Date: Thursday, August 07, 2014
Plaintiff: ABS-CBN Corporation, ABS-CBN Film Productions, Inc., ABS-CBN International
Plaintiff Counsel: Matthew A. Levin of Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf PC
Defendant: Jeffrey Ashby, Lenie Ashby, Does 1-100
Cause: Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel

No Complaint available. Case has been sealed.

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 – Mackenzie Architecture v. Mackenzie Engineering

06 Friday Jun 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

For nearly a decade, Plaintiff and Defendants were able to coexist using their respective marks, MACKENZIE ARCHITECTURE and GROUP MACKENZIE. Around August 2013, Defendants dropped GROUP from the mark GROUP MACKENZIE and began operating under the mark MACKENZIE alone. Both entities are located in Portland, Oregon and provide architecture services.

Mackenzie Architecture Inc. v. Mackenzie Engineering Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00886-AA
File Date: Monday, June 02, 2014
Plaintiff: Mackenzie Architecture Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Kevin M. Hayes of Klarquist Sparkman LLP
Defendant: Mackenzie Engineering Inc., Group Mackenzie Incorporated Architecture Planning & Interior Designs
Cause: Unfair Competition, Trademark Infringement, Improper Amendment, Improper Ownership
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Sleash v. One Pet Planet et al

30 Friday May 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Sleash, LLC v. One Pet Planet, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00863-ST
File Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Plaintiff: Sleash, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Johnathan E. Mansfield of MansfieldLaw
Defendant: One Pet Planet, LLC, Amazing Pet Products, Choo Choo Imports LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Contributory Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart

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