Tag Archives: Unlawful Trade Practices

Breach of Contract over Moisturizing Personal Lubricant Leads to Lawsuit

06 Monday Nov 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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:

Stash Tea Company vs. Stash Cannabis Company…are you confused?

21 Thursday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff, Stash Tea Company, has been in the business of merchandising, supplying and selling high quality tea and tea related products since the early 1970s. They are headquartered in Tigard, Oregon, with a Tea Bar in North Portland. Plaintiff owns several trademark registration for STASH, including the following:

U.S. Reg. No. 4,868,446 for STASH covering “On-line wholesale and retail store services featuring dried plants and tea; Wholesale and retail store services featuring dried plants and tea”

IMG_8773.jpg

Defendant, Stash Cannabis Company, is a marijuana dispensary in Beaverton, Oregon (for those not from Portland, Beaverton and Tigard are really close.) They opened in September 2015.
Screen Shot 2016-04-21 at 7.50.35 AM

Plaintiff has alleged no instances of actual confusion in the Complaint (below) but apparently doesn’t like another STASH nearby.

Does Plaintiff’s trademark registration for “dried plants” extend to marijuana flowers? Keep in mind Plaintiff has never sold marijuana flowers, dry or otherwise. The very broad and somewhat vague “dried plants” description was not challenged by a USPTO Examining Attorney but could leave the relatively new registration open to reexamination or cancellation.

Stay tuned for updates.

Universal Tea Company, Inc., dba Stash Tea Company v. Stash Cannabis Company, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00685
File Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Plaintiff: Universal Tea Company, Inc. d/b/a Stash Tea Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Susan D. Pitchford, Amelia S. Forsberg of Chernoff Vilhauer LLP
Defendant: Stash Cannabis Company, LLC, Chris Matthews
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Passing Off, Federal Trademark Dilution, State Trademark Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices
Judge: Marco A. Hernandez

Complaint:

Virtual Concierge App Concierge ToGo involved in trademark lawsuit against Conciergo

28 Monday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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:

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 Copyright Litigation Update – Business Transitions v. Erik Pahlow et al

16 Monday Dec 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

This father vs. son copyright/trade secret/employment lawsuit results from the son’s desire to create a new business in competition with the father’s business. Along the way, the son (previously employed by the father’s company) has allegedly taken intellectual property, trade secrets and employees from the father’s company, all in violation of existing Confidentiality/Nondisclosure agreements and Employee policies.

Business Transitions, LLC et al v. Erik Pahlow et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-02168-ST
File Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Plaintiff: Business Transitions, LLC, FP Transitions, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: David P. Rossmiller of Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue LLP
Defendant: Erik Pahlow, Salena Santibanez, Resource Group, LLC, David Grau, Jr.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Oregon Trade Secret Misappropriation, Breach of Contract, Unlawful Trade Practices, Intentional Interference With Contract or Prospective Business Advantage, Permanent Injunction
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Pacific Cargo Control v. Quality Chain Corporation

02 Wednesday Oct 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Pacific Cargo Control, Inc. v. Quality Chain Corporation

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-01750-MO
File Date: Tuesday, October 01, 2013
Plaintiff: Pacific Cargo Control, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Hillary A. Brooks, Delfina S. Homen of Marger Johnson & McCollom, PC
Defendant: Quality Chain Corporation
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: District of Oregon
Judge: Judge Michael W. Mosman

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – InsightsNow v. SuperPsyched

06 Saturday Apr 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff InsightsNow, Inc. is a Corvallis-based company that has been offering a market research service in the consumer packaged goods industry called “BehaviorLens“. Plaintiff’s claimed date of first use in commerce is August 26, 2011. Defendant SuperPsyched is a Colorado based app-maker with an app for tracking student behavior called “BehaviorLENS“. Defendant’s date of first use in commerce is October 11, 2011. In response to an initial cease and desist letter, Defendant apparently made efforts to distinguish its trademark and services but not to the satisfaction of Plaintiff, resulting in this lawsuit.

InsightsNow, Inc. v. SuperPsyched, LLC

Court Case Number: 6:13-cv-00573-TC
File Date: Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Plaintiff: InsightsNow, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Delfina S. Homen, Hillary S. Brooks of Marger Johnson & McCollom PC
Defendant: SuperPsyched, LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Naked Wines LLC v. Mustache Mentors, Inc.

09 Saturday Mar 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Hood River-based Naked Winery is pursuing a new San Francisco-based winemaker, Naked Rebel Winery, for trademark infringement. It’s not necessarily a slam-dunk case, as there are several other “naked-formative” trademarks used in connection with wine.  Naked Rebel filed it’s own trademark application back in December although there’s been no action yet by a Trademark Examiner. However, based on rejections received in other “naked” applications, it seems the Naked Rebel crew may have to overcome both this lawsuit and then a 2(d) refusal in order to successfully use and register their trademark.

Trademark practitioners, do you prefer to file a trademark complaint prior to an Examiner’s review of a pending trademark application or do you wait for an Examiner’s 2(d) refusal? I’m curious as to your thoughts in either direction.

Naked Wines LLC v. Mustache Mentors, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-00402-HZ
File Date: Friday, March 08, 2013
Plaintiff: Naked Wines LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Hillary A. Brooks, Delfina S. Homen of Marger Johnson & McCollom, PC
Defendant: Mustache Mentors, Inc., Mustache Mentors LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Judge Marco A. Hernandez

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation v. The Peacock Bar & Grill East

17 Sunday Feb 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation v. The Peacock Bar & Grill East et al

Court Case Number: 6:13-cv-00281-TC
File Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013
Plaintiff: Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Franklin J. Seibert of F.J. Seibert LLC
Defendant: The Peacock Bar & Grill East, SKMJMM LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices, Common Law Passing Off
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin

Oregon Trademark Litigation Update – Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation v. Frank-N-Steins Pub et al

16 Saturday Feb 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation v. Frank-N-Steins Pub et al

Court Case Number: 6:13-cv-00279-AA
File Date: Friday, February 15, 2013
Plaintiff: Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Carl D Crowell of Crowell Law, Franklin J. Seibert of Franklin Jason Seibert
Defendant: Frank-N-Steins Pub, EET L.L.C.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Unlawful Trade Practices, Common Law Passing Off
Court: Oregon District Court
Judge: Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken