Posted On: May 29, 2008

Los Angeles, CA - Lawsuit Filed On Behalf Of Model To Stop Use Of Her Image, Photograph, Likeness In Association With Cosmetic Medical Company Removed To Federal Court – Cal. Civ. Code 3344

Los Angeles, CA – A lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging misappropriation of likeness/image for commercial purpose under Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 and unfair competition under the Lanham Act §43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125). Pamela Paulshock, an actress and model, alleged that defendant Heavenly Cosmetic used her photograph – without her authorization or compensation – in advertisements for its services in the field of cosmetic medical care and services published in L.A. Weekly Magazine. Based upon the federal cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, defendants filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) to move the case to the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, where the case is pending. The complaint alleges that “Plaintiff is the attractive female in the Defendant’s advertisement, is the focal point of the label, and is clearly visible and recognizable to the naked eye. At no time prior to or after the image was published, did Plaintiff consent to her image being published by the Defendant in this manner, nor to any agent or employee of the Defendant.” The complaint also asserts causes of action for invasion of common law right of privacy (unauthorized misappropriation of image/photograph) and unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The case is titled Shamshock v. Heavenly Cosmetic Medical SPA, CV08-03347 R (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Posted On: May 28, 2008

Jewelry Patent Claim Construction (“Markman”) Ruling Issued By The Court In Jewelry Patent Infringement Lawsuit - Attorneys

In a jewelry patent infringement lawsuit pending at the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, after oral arguments by each party’s patent attorneys at the Markman hearing, the Court issued its claim construction ruling interpreting the disputed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,928,734 (“the ’734 patent”), 6,990,736 (“the ’736 patent”), 7,032,314 (“the ’314 patent”) and 7,076,972 (“the ’972 patent”). The patents cover jewelry rings made of tungsten carbide and a method for making such jewelry rings. The ’736, ’314, and ’972 patents are continuations-in-part of unasserted U.S. Patent No. 6,062,045, titled “Wear Resistance Jewelry.”

jewelry-patent-attorney-design-tungsten.jpgThe Court set forth the legal standard for claim construction as a question of law to be decided by the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The patentee’s use of a claim term in the specification is highly relevant to understanding the proper context in which the term is used. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The specification is the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id., citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Following these controlling cases in the patent claim construction arena cited above, the Court adopted some of each party’s proposed claim interpretations and, in one instance, the Court adopted a modified combination of each party’s proposed claim construction. The Court’s ruling is available here. The case is titled Trent West v. Jewelry Innovations, Inc., CV07-1812 JF (N.D. Cal. 2007).

Posted On: May 27, 2008

Glendale Copyright Attorneys Filed A Copyright Infringement Lawsuit On Behalf of Fox And Warner Brothers Over Internet Sales Of Movies

Glendale, CA – Copyright attorneys representing Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. filed a copyright infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles over alleged infringing sales of each company’s movies. The complaint itemizes each company’s motion pictures which have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendant does business on the Internet, under the iOffer username “Neighborhood-Blockbusters” and has “copied, reproduced, distributed, advertised and/or sold and continue to copy, reproduce, distribute, advertise and/or sell unauthorized copies of motion pictures owned by Plaintiffs,” which copies are allegedly counterfeit.

fox-glendale-copyright-attorney-infringement.jpgPlaintiffs have purchased copies of the movies sold by the Defendant and have determined that the “packaging fails to conform with packaging characteristic of Plaintiffs’ home video product and the disk does not contain the file structure characteristic of legitimate product.” Plaintiffs state that their damages cannot yet be determined and they may elect between the profits generated by the defendants or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504. Plaintiffs also request that the damages be enhanced because the Defendant’s alleged infringement is willful and intentional. Plaintiffs also request that their attorneys’ fees and other costs in connection with the prosecution of its claims be paid by defendant pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Cox, CV08-03151 SJO (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Posted On: May 23, 2008

Costa Mesa, CA: Patent Attorneys For Broadcom Corporation Filed A Patent Infringement Lawsuit Asserting Four Utility Patents Protecting GPS Related Inventions

Costa Mesa, CA – Broadcom’s patent attorneys filed a patent infringement complaint at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, accusing SiRF Technology of infringing four of Broadcom’s patents. Icon states that it is “an award-winning innovator in the field of exercise equipment and provides a variety of consumer products.” Icon is the assignee of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,104,120, titled “Exercise Machine Control System.” Icon is also the owner by assignment of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,019,710, titled “Exercising Device With Elliptical Movement.” The first, U.S. Patent No. 7,310,104, is entitled “Graphics Display System with Anti-Flutter Filtering and Vertical Scaling Feature.” The next, U.S. Patent No. 6,501,480, is entitled “Graphics Accelerator.” The third, U.S. Patent No. 6,747,497, is entitled “High-Speed, Wide Bandwidth Phase Locked Loop.” And finally, U.S. Patent No. 5,525,127, is entitled “Unique Word Detector and Method for Detecting a Unique Word Within One of Several Windows Offset in Time.” The complaint alleges that SiRF sells chips which provide GPS functionality for devices and enables GPS devices to support graphics and video processing. The case is titled Broadcom Corporation v. SiRF Technology, Inc., SACV08-546 AG (C.D. 2008).

Posted On: May 22, 2008

Oxnard Trademark Attorneys File Trademark Infringement and Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125) Complaint To Protect Athena Cosmetic’s Trademarks, Including Revitalash

Oxnard, CA – A trademark infringement and Lanham Act §43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. 1125) lawsuit was filed by attorneys for Athena Cosmetics, Inc., at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana. Athena is the owner of USPTO trademark registrations for the Revitalash, Athena, and Athena Cosmetics trademarks.

cosmetics-trademark-lanham-act-athena.jpgThe complaint alleges that Defendants incorporated under the confusingly similar name of Athena Bioscience, also using it as a trademark, in addition to using the confusingly similar trademark of Athena Lash Serum. The complaint further asserts causes of action for unfair completion under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contract, and declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §2201 as to the ownership of the trademarks. The case is titled Athena Cosmetics, Inc. v. Athena Bioscience, SACV08-0532 AG (C.D. 2008).

Posted On: May 20, 2008

Textile/Fabric Copyright Attorneys File Copyright Infringement Lawsuit To Protect United Fabric’s Designs From Copying: Los Angeles, CA

Los Angeles, CA – Textile/Garment copyright attorneys sought protection for United Fabrics’ copyrighted fabric/textile designs by filing a copyright infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal District Court to prevent the copying of its copyrighted fabric/textile designs by others. Plaintiff alleges that two of its copyrighted designs are being copied. The first design, titled SUZETTE, was received by assignment and the spatially arranged floral elements were converted for printing on textiles. After plaintiff applied for and received copyright registration for this first design with the U.S. Copyright Office, it discovered that Macy’s was selling garments with the Plaintiff’s alleged copyrighted design.

textile-fabric-attorney-copyright-protect-UF.jpgPlaintiff was also the assignee of all rights in another floral design artwork, which United Fabric titled as “Brenda.” Once again plaintiff received a copyright registration from the U.S. Copyright Office and provided samples of the fabric to defendant R&M Richards, Inc. Defendant, in turn, allegedly copied the design and had the fabric/textile printed elsewhere and sold garments bearing the copyrighted design to Macy’s. Defendant Swat allegedly did not order any fabric from Plaintiff, but instead copied the design through third parties and manufactured and sold garments to various retailers. The complaint alleges a cause of action for copyright infringement for each of the copyrighted fabric designs. It also alleges a cause of action for vicarious and/or contributory copyright infringement. Finally, a breach of contract claim is alleged against R&M Richards because it had agreed that it was receiving Plaintiff’s copyrighted designs with the clear understanding and agreement that they were proprietary to Plaintiff, and that it would place any orders for the fabrics through the Plaintiff. The case is titled United Fabrics International, Inc. v. Macy’s, Inc., CV08-02954 (C.D. Cal 2008).

Posted On: May 19, 2008

Santa Ana, CA – Trademark, Patent, and Trade Dress Attorneys For Oakley Filed Design Patent Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, and Trademark Lawsuit To Stop Copying Of Oakley’s Protected Sunglasses/Eyewear

Santa Ana, CA – Oakley’s trademark and patent attorneys filed a patent infringement, trade dress infringement, and trademark infringement complaint at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana to stop copying of protected sunglasses/eyewear. Oakley registered its stylized ellipsoid “O” logo trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for use on goods in International Class 9 (e.g. eyewear, sunglasses,and goggles). Oakley also registered its stylized ellipsoid “O” logo as used on the side of a sunglass ear-stem with the USPTO. As further protection, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. D556,818, titled “Eyewear Components,” which protects the design and ornamentation embodied by Oakley’s Gascan sunglass.

design-patent-protect-sunglasses-oakley.jpgThe complaint alleges that Outlook Eyewear has “advertised and sold counterfeit products bearing a reproduction or copy of the trademarks, which mark is an unauthorized reproduction of Oakley’s famous ellipsoid “O” mark intended to cause a likelihood of confusion or to deceive or otherwise capitalize upon Oakley’s goodwill.” The complaint also alleges that Oakely has obtained trade dress protection in the design of its Gascan line of sunglasses because of the expenditure of large sums of money in its promotion and, as a result of which, it “has become, through widespread public acceptance, a distinctive designation of the source of origin of goods offered by Oakely and an asset of incalculable value as a symbol of Oakley and its quality goods and good will.” In addition to preliminary and permanent injunctions, Oakley seeks monetary damages and its attorneys’ fees. The case is titled Oakley, Inc. v. Outlook Eyewear Company, SACV 08-00439 JVS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Posted On: May 16, 2008

Los Angeles, CA: Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed By Exclusive Licensee Of Neurography System Patent Against Pasadena Based Medical Companies

Los Angeles, CA – A patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Neurographix, an exclusive licensee of the patent at issue, in the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, accusing Pasadena based Oak Tree Medical Corporation of infringing on the licensed patent. The University of Washington is the owner by assignment of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,560,360, entitled “Image Neurography and Diffusion Anisotropy Imaging.” Pursuant to a first licensing agreement, the University of Washington granted an exclusive license to the ‘360 patent to the Washington Research Foundation. The foundation, in turn, granted an exclusive license to the ‘360 patent to Neurografix.

medical-device-patent-attorney-infringement-lawsuit-neurografix.jpgThe complaint alleges that defendants Oak Tree Medical and Dr. Jay Tsuruda are infringing the ‘360 patent by making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services which provide peripheral nerve MRI imaging services. It is alleged that “Defendants knowingly, willfully, and deliberately infringed and, on information and belief, continue to infringe the ‘360 Patent in conscious disregard of [Neurografix’s] and [Washington Research Foundation’s] rights, making this case exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §285 and justifying treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284.” Plaintiffs also seek both preliminary and permanent injunctions against further alleged infringement. The case is titled Neurografix et al. v. Oak Tree Medical Corporation et al., CV 08-02923 CAS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Posted On: May 15, 2008

Trademark And Cybersquatting Attorneys For Buy.com File Trademark Infringement, Lanham Act Unfair Competition And Cybersquatting Lawsuit To Stop Alleged Cybersquatter Of Domain Name In Santa Ana, CA

Santa Ana, CA – Trademark and anti-cybersquatting attorneys for Buy.com filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition, cyberquatting, and California Business and Professions Code §17200 lawsuit in Federal District Court in Santa Ana against an alleged cybersquatter of the buys.com domain name. Buy.com has been an e-commerce company since 1997 and has operated the website buy.com to market and sell products since at least 1998. Buy.com owns three relevant trademarks related to its business, which marks are registered on the Principal Register of the USPTO. Buy.com alleges that “throughout the past 10 years, Plaintiff has used the buy.com trademarks to build and establish considerable goodwill in the online retail industry. In fact, through the use of these trademarks, Plaintiff is universally recognized as a leader in e-commerce and as a provider of superior goods and services, and is visited by over 5 million US shoppers each month.”

The complaint continues, “Defendant is the registrant of the Internet domain name buys.com [with an additional “s”]. Defendant uses the buys.com website to profit from the Buy.com trademarks. Specifically, Defendant’s buys.com website contains numerous advertisements for and/or hyperlinks to a variety of products and services that compete directly with Plaintiff, such as eBay and Dell. Upon information and belief, Defendant receives a payment when Internet users click on one or more links or advertisements on the buys.com website . . . By using the buys.com domain name that is confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s trademarks Defendant was and is creating, or attempting to create, an association between the buys.com domain name and Plaintiff, and has frustrated or diverted Internet traffic intended for Plaintiff.” The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2) False designation of origin and unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) Cybersquatting under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); (4) California common law unfair competition; (5) Unfair competition under California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; (6) Common law unfair competition; and (7) Declaratory Judgment under 28 U.S.C. §2201. The case is titled: Buy.com, Inc. v. Webmagic Ventures, LLC, SACV08-00510 JVS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Posted On: May 14, 2008

Los Angeles, CA: Trademark Attorneys For Chiropractor File Trademark Infringement, Lanham Act 43(a) Unfair Competition, And False Advertising Lawsuit Over Google Adwords Used By Competitor

Los Angeles, CA – Chiropractor Dr. Jeffrey James’ trademark attorneys filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition, and a false advertising lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, against rival chiropractor Dr. Michael Karr, dba West Los Angeles Chiropractic. Dr. James asserts that he has provided chiropractic services under his personal name and “Westside Spine and Injury Center” – which function as his trademarks – in the Los Angeles area for over 20 years. Dr. James has also maintained a website since 2004 to attract potential consumers of his services throughout the United States and the rest of the world. The complaint states that over “the past 10+ years, [Dr. James] has built a strong following and became (sic) famous for his services, and the name 'Dr. Jeffrey James' has acquired secondary meaning as a designation of source or origin of the high quality services the [Dr. James] provides under the name 'Dr. Jeffrey James' and ‘Westside Spine and Injury Center.’”

Dr. Karr operates a website on the Internet located at westlachiropractic.com to advertise his chiropractic services in competition with Dr. James. “In or about March 2008, [Dr. James] discovered [Dr. Karr’s] use of his name ‘Dr. Jeffrey James’, in order to attract potential customers to [Dr. Karr’s] website.” Dr. Karr allegedly also used “Dr. Jeffrey James” as a “keyword trigger on the Google website by affirmatively requesting that the Google AdWords program list [Dr. Karr’s] Website when a Google user inputs ‘Dr. Jeffrey James’ as a search request, using the name ‘Jeffrey James’ in the title of the advertisements so as to attract Internet users . . . and creating the false impression that [Dr. Karr was] related to [Dr. James] (“Palming Off”) in order to induce their business or cause initial interest confusion.” In addition to a preliminary and permanent injunction, Dr. James seeks monetary damages against Dr. Karr. The case is titled: Dr. Jeffrey James D.C. v. Michael Karr, CV08-02231 GPS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Posted On: May 13, 2008

Santa Ana, CA: Patent Attorneys For Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. Filed A Patent Infringement Lawsuit Asserting Two Utility Patents Against Corona, CA Based Nellie’s Exercise Equipment, Inc. and Octane Fitness, LLC

Santa Ana, CA – Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.’s (“Icon”) patent attorneys filed a patent infringement complaint at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, accusing Corona, California based Nellie’s Exercise Equipment, Inc. and Octane Fitness, LLC of infringing two of Icon’s patents. Icon states that it is “an award-winning innovator in the field of exercise equipment and provides a variety of consumer products.” Icon is the assignee of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,104,120, titled “Exercise Machine Control System.” Icon is also the owner by assignment of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,019,710, titled “Exercising Device With Elliptical Movement.”

patent-attorneys-exercise-equipment-lawsuit.jpgIcon alleges that both defendants infringe on both of the patents through the manufacturing, importing, and/or sale of the Octane Fitness Q47 Series exercise device. “The conduct of [Defendants] as set forth hereinabove gives rise to a claim for infringement of the Asserted Patents, pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. Icon also asserts that it “is entitled to injunctive and monetary relief against [defendants], pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 283, 284, and 285. The case is titled Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC, et al., SACV 08-00437 CJC (C.D. Cal. 2008).