Costa Mesa Trademark Attorneys Filed Trademark And Breach Of Sponsorship Agreement On Behalf Of NASCAR Driver Robby Gordon’s Company
Los Angeles, CA – Costa Mesa trademark attorneys filed breach of sponsorship agreement on behalf of NASCAR driver’s team Robby Gordon Motorsports and seek declaratory relief regarding the defendant’s trademark rights. Because of Robby Gordon’s successful NASCAR racing career, companies are willing to pay significant amounts of money for sponsorship and licensing opportunities. The complaint alleges that in 2007, Gordon and Camping World entered into a sponsorship agreement by which Camping World sponsored Robby Gordon Motorsports in connection with several NASCAR races.
For the 2008 racing season, Camping World and Robby Gordon Motorsports entered into another sponsorship agreement where “Camping World agreed to provide two motor coaches and pay [Gordon] $200,000 per race for primary car sponsorship for four NASCAR Sprint Cup races.” The complaint alleges that Camping world has partially performed its obligations by providing one of the two motor coaches, but is now refusing to provide the second motor coach. The complaint continues that Camping World sought to renege the sponsorship agreement by demanding that Robby Gordon “ensure that Camping World’s colors and logos do not appear on [Gordon’s] car...and Gordon does not have [Camping World’s] permission to bear [Camping World’s] trademarks.” Also, Camping World has allegedly failed to pay at least $250,000 due under the sponsorship agreement. Robby Gordon Motorsports requests monetary damages for the alleged breach of contract and the Court’s determination of the rights of the parties with respect to the trademarks. The case is titled Team Gordon, Inc. v. Camping World, Inc., CV08-01731 MMM (C.D. California).
In the settlement agreement, Trans World admitted to infringing BVS’s copyrights and was required to identify all entities to which Trans World had licensed the Spiderman animated series. The complaint, however, alleges that Trans World failed to identify all of the entities which BVS later discovered. BVS claims that “Trans World failed to abide by the terms of the Settlement Agreement and continued to infringe [the copyrights] even after Trans World signed the Settlement Agreement on Februaruy 1, 2008. Specifically, Trans World sent an email on February 3, 2008, to Corus Entertainment, Inc., offering ten episodes of ‘Spiderman’ to which BVS owns the exclusive copyrights, as Trans World acknowledged in the Settlement Agreement.” BVS seeks monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction against Trans World and asks the Court to order the “seizure of unauthorized copies of ‘Spiderman’ in Trans World’s possession custody and control, including means of production as provided by 17 U.S.C. section 503.” The case is titled BVS Entertainment, Inc. v. Trans World Films Corp., CV08-01694 DDP (C.D. California).
Licensing negotiations hit a sour note and Activision filed the instant complaint asking the District Court in Los Angeles to rule that the ‘405 Patent is invalid and/or not infringed by the Guitar Hero video-game. Activision also alleges that because Gibson has been aware of the Guitar Hero video-game for many years and has encouraged its sale, that Gibson should be estopped from asserting the patent. Also, because Gibson has encouraged the sale of the games, Activision argues that it has an implied license under the ‘405 patent. Further, Activision alleges that because Gibson has been fully aware of the Guitar Hero video-game for several years, it should not be able to enforce the patent under the doctrine of laches. The case is titled Activision Publishing, Inc. v. Gibson Guitar Corporation, CV08-01653 PSG (C.D. California).
The complaint continues that the franchisee must also agree to allow Dairy Queen to audit the financial records to determine whether the proper amount of the licensing fee is being paid. If any of these franchising terms were not met and cured, it would constitute a default and the franchise rights would be terminated. After termination, the franchisee would agree to immediately cease the use and display of all of Dairy Queen’s trademarks. The terminated franchisee would also need to pay a termination fee to compensate Dairy Queen for the early termination of the franchising agreement. The complaint alleges that defendant Lee failed to comply with the upkeep standards set by Dairy Queen for its franchisee’s location and was given 60 days to correct the deficiencies, which went uncorrected. The complaint also alleges that, after an audit, it was determined that Lee underpaid Dairy Queen by $16,911.84, which Lee failed to pay after receiving notice. The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Trademark infringement of USPTO registered trademarks; (2) False designation of origin under the Lanham Act 43(a) (15 U.S.C. 1125(a)); (3) Federal trademark dilution of famous trademarks under the Lanham Act 43(c) (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)); (4) Trademark counterfeiting; and (5) Breach of contract. The case is titled American Dairy Queen Corporation and DQF, Inc., v. Myung Taek Lee, CV08-01505 AHM (C.D. California).
Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant adopted and began using the Newport Dental Group mark with actual or constructive knowledge of [Plaintiff’s] prior use and application to register the Newport Dental Marks, and with the intent to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the Newport Dental Marks. Defendant’s use of the Newport Dental Group trademark, the complaint alleges, “is likely to lead to lead consumers to erroneously believe that Defendant’s services originate from or are otherwise sponsored by, approved by, or affiliated with the owner of the Newport Dental” trademarks. In addition to preliminary and permanent injunctions, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and attorneys’ fees as a result of the Defendant’s alleged trademark infringement. The case is titled Bright Now! Dental, Inc., v. Newport Dental Group, SACV08-00223 JVS (C.D. California).
Watson has beaten the patent owners to the punch and filed a declaratory judgment action because it believes that it will be sued for patent infringement. Watson seeks a declaration from the Court that the patent is “is invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the drub product described in Watson’s ANDA.” The case is titled Watson Laboratories, Inc., v. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., SACV08-0243 JVS (C.D. California).
Nike alleges that two individual defendants manufacture, distribute, and or sell counterfeit footwear bearing the Nike trademarks through several websites. Nike alleges that the two individual defendants are residents of Long Beach, California and base their counterfeiting operations there. Nike’s federal trademark infringement arises under Sections 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125. Nike’s Lanham Act – unfair competition claim arises under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and (d) for false designation of origin and false descriptions and representations in interstate commerce. Nike’s dilution of famous marks arises under the Lanham Act section 43, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The case is titled Nike, Inc. v. Nyla Kauv, CV08-01404 ODW (C.D. California)
Plaintiff alleges that several defendants are infringing its patent by making, selling, and using undulating figure products embodying the patented invention. Plaintiff also states that defendants are infringing on its “Fly Guy” trademark by using the confusingly similar “Fly Guys” trademark. In addition, Plaintiff contends that the defendants are using its “Fly Guy” trademark as a Google adword to redirect consumers to defendants’ websites. The complaint asserts causes of action for infringement; federal trademark infringement of registered trademark (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114-1117; Lanham Act § 32); federal unfair competition (false designation of origin and false description (Lanham Act 43(a) and 15 U.S.C. 1125); trademark infringement under California law; California unfair competition under section 17200; and trademark dilution. Plaintiff alleges that the infringement is willful and intentional and requests that the damages be trebled. The case is titled Air Dimensional, Inc., v. Action Sky Dancers, CV08-01121 GW (C.D. California).