Tag Archives: Unfair Competition

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Webb v. Marlon Recreational Products USA, Ltd. et al

04 Monday Jan 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Webb v. Marlon Recreational Products USA, Ltd. et al

Court Case Number: 3:2015-cv-02380
File Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Plaintiff: Vincent L. Webb
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen J. Joncus of Joncus Law LLC
Defendant: Marlon Recreational Products USA, Ltd. et al
Cause: Violation of the Permanent Injunction, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Trademark Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Fraud
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Stacie F. Beckerman

Complaint:

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – adidas America et al v. Skechers USA

24 Thursday Sep 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

adidas has a long history with Skechers. In 1994, adidas filed suit for trademark infringement over Skechers‘s Karl Kani footwear. The companies entered into a settlement agreement the following year (the “1995 Agreement,” attached below). Under this agreement, Skechers acknowledged that adidas is the exclusive owner of the THREE STRIPE DESIGN, agreed not to use the THREE STRIPE DESIGN or any mark confusingly similar thereto, and agreed to cease distribution of its KARL KANI sport shoe.

Between 2008 and 2013, adidas and Skechers allegedly entered into five separate confidential settlement agreements about infringements and dilutions of the Three-Stripe Mark. This most recent complaint from adidas claims that “notwithstanding the 1995 Agreement and the subsequent 2008-2013 Agreements–and in continuing, blatant disregard of adidas‘s rights–Skechers yet again is . . . selling footwear . . . bearing a confusingly similar imitation of the adidas Marks.”

adidas is especially aggrieved about a shoe that is (allegedly) confusingly similar to their famous Stan Smith shoe and claims that Skechers intends their “Stan Smith Knock-Off” shoe to be confusingly similar to the adidas Trade Dress and offers evidence that the Skechers website included the terms “stan smith” and “adidas original” in the source code.

adidas America Inc. et al v. Skechers USA Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-01741-JE
File Date: Monday, September 14, 2015
Plaintiff: adidas America Inc., adidas AG, Adidas International Marketing B.V.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen M. Feldman of Perkins Coie LLP
Defendant: Skechers USA Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark and Trade Dress Dilution, State Trademark Dilution with respect to the Three-Stripe Mark, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge John Jelderks

Complaint:

1995 Agreement:

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – adidas America v. Forever 21

18 Tuesday Aug 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Adidas has filed a complaint alleging that clothing retailer, Forever 21, and clothing manufacturer/distributor, Central Mills, have been selling counterfeit adidas clothing. In the complaint, adidas alleges Defendants have been importing and selling “apparel bearing three stripes that constitute counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations of adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark,” and included pictures of two examples (see Complaint below).

In 2013, Forever 21 and Central Mills were sued by fashion photograher, Mark Hunter, for copyright infringement. Hunter alleged that Defendants used one of his photographs on clothing without authorization. That case was settled out of court less than four months after the complaint was filed.

adidas America Inc. et al v. Forever 21 Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-01559
File Date: Monday, August 17, 2015
Plaintiff: adidas America Inc., adidas AG
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen M. Feldman of Perkins Coie LLP
Defendant: Forever 21 Inc., Central Mills Inc.
Cause: Counterfeiting, 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: Michael H. Simon

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 – Dynamic Measurement Group v. University of Oregon et al

13 Wednesday Aug 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Dynamic Measurement Group Inc. v. University of Oregon et al

Court Case Number: 6:14-cv-01295-TC
File Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Plaintiff: Dynamic Measurement Group Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Frederick A. Batson of Gleaves Swearingen Potter & Scott LLP
Defendant: University of Oregon, Mia Tuan, Edward J. Kame’enui, Francis J. Fien IV, Brad Shelton, Hop Skip Technologies Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Oregon State Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, Violation of Copyright Management Provisions, Injunctive Relief
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin

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 – iovation v. IOvations

29 Thursday May 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff iovation, based in Portland, Oregon, sells computer security and fraud prevention services to customers internationally. Plaintiff has used the term IOVATION as a trade name and trademark since at least as early as June 1, 2004.iovation Screen Shot

Defendant IOvations, of Massachusetts, was organized on July 12, 2004. According to the Complaint, IOvations first limited the services it offered under the IOVATIONS mark to digital data storage solutions. More recently, IOvations has expanded the services it offers under the mark to include computer “network and security solutions.”

Given the similarity, both visually and aurally, between the IOVATION and IOVATIONS trademarks, the closely-related goods and services that the parties sell, and the parties’ overlapping channels of trade and classes of consumers, Plaintiff alleges that actual confusion between the parties and their respective marks is likely to continue and increase.

Failure to negotiate mutually-agreeable terms of coexistence led to this lawsuit.

iovation, Inc. v. IOvations, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00838
File Date: Thursday, May 22, 2014
Plaintiff: iovation, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stuart R. Dunwoody of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Defendant: IOvations, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Paul Papak

 

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 – Too Marker Products v. Alvin and Company

12 Monday May 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Plaintiff manufactures and sells high-end markers for illustrators and design professionals. Their markers have distinctive squarish bodies and distinctive squarish cap-ends, both protected by U.S. trademark registrations.

This lawsuit arises because the configuration of Defendant’s Heritage A-Line markers is alleged to be confusingly similar to the configuration denoted in the trademark registrations and the configuration of Plaintiffs’ COPIC line of markers.

 [Update 12/16/14]: This case has been settled and a final judgment entered along with a permanent injunction against the Defendant.

Final Judgment by Consent and Permanent Injunction:

Too Marker Products, Inc. et al v. Alvin and Company, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00773-AC
File Date: Friday, May 09, 2014
Plaintiff: Too Marker Products, Inc., Imagination International, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Timothy S. DeJong, Jacob S. Gill of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter PC
Defendant: Alvin and Company, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta