Los Angeles Intellectual Property Trademark Attorney Blog

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark and copyright attorneys for Guru Denim, a subsidiary of True Religion Apparel, filed a trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125) complaint at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles to stop copying of its jeans and sales of fakes and counterfeits. Guru Denim has sought copyright, patent, and trademark protection on its garments and jeans. Guru Denim owns U.S. Patent No. D547530 for the stitch pattern applied to True Religion Brand Jeans pants. Guru Denim owns two U.S. Copyright Registrations for the True Religion Brand Jeans Designs, Copyright Certificate of Registration numbers VA1-192-834 and VA1-301-845.

Guru Denim owns a USPTO registered trademark for the “True Religion Brand Jeans World Tour Fashion for the Senses Section Row Seat.” Also, Guru Denim “owns registered United States trademarks in the pocket stitching pattern that appears on True Religion Brand Jeans pants and the overall stitching pattern on the front of True Religion Brand Jeans pants.” Guru Denim also has 4 USPTO registered trademarks for “True Religion Brand Jeans” with assorted designs. Finally, Guru Denim has registered its “True Religion” word marks with the USPTO. Guru Denim’s “line of ‘super-premium’ denim wear, which ranges in retail price from $170.00 to in excess of $300.00, is acclaimed in the fashion industry due to its famous name recognition which represents quality and distinguished craftsmanship. Each piece of clothing or pair of denim distributed under the Mark bears an emblem of a smiling Buddha strumming a guitar and, in some occasions, is elaborately embroidered.”

Guru Denim discovered that numerous defendants were selling allegedly fake and counterfeit jeans on their Websites. The complaint asserts that Guru Denim's investigator purchased a True Religion pair of jeans from the denimbutt.com website for $129.00 plus a shipping cost of $1.95, where the defendant causes confusion by claiming that it is “committed to selling only first-quality, genuine designer fashions (sic) items, clothes and accessories.” The complaint continues that Guru Denim’s “inspection of the purchased item using security measures confirmed that the item Defendants sold to the investigator was in fact a counterfeit pair of True Religion Brand Jeans denim pants.”

The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114; (2) Federal copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §501; (3) False designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); (4) Trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. §1125(c) and California Business & Professions Code §14330; (5) Common law copyright infringement under California Civil Code §980; (6) Unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code §17200; and (7) Unjust enrichment. The case is titled Guru Denim, Inc. v. Simon Halwani, et al., CV 08-02803 FMC (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: Guru Denim has used different forms of intellectual property to provide the broadest possible scope of protection to its products and business. Patent, trademark and copyright protection can overlap and protect different aspects of the same product and prevent unfair competition and infringing conduct that can affect your business.

The complaint lists the following additional defendants: thedenimbutt.com, Jeans & Company, Joymic Corp., Digitally Discovered, Joseph Barsano, thedenimspa.com, denimliquidators.com, denimbuys.com, Denim Buy Liquidators, Jizzle Tech, and lovebubbleclothing.com.

Posted by Milord A. Keshishian | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: 17200 Unfair Competition , Copyright Litigation , Counterfeit , Lanham Act 43(a) , Trademark Litigation

Bookmark:

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright and trademark attorneys filed a lawsuit, at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, to protect plaintiff’s website, www.wowhead.com, which is designed to assist gamers of the on-line video game known as World of Warcraft. According to Plaintiff, the wowhead.com website “is one of the most recognized and utilized websites of its kind accessed by tens of thousands of individuals each day. Plaintiff has filed for and received copyright registrations from the U.S. Copyright Office for its website and certain computer code used therein. Plaintiff claims that the “design and appearance/visual presentation of the WOWHEAD website are unique in the industry and therefore constitute an inherently distinctive trade dress respecting the presentation of Plaintiff’s services all of which have resulted in a non-functional trade dress which consumers identify with Plaintiff’s wowhead website.”

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, www.wowdb.com, “essentially replicated the appearance, design, as well as certain other unique features of Plaintiff’s WOWHEAD website, in order to launch with the creation of an original website. Defendant’s website . . . like the WOWHEAD website, also caters to individuals who participate in the World of Warcraft on-line video game.” The complaint alleges that “defendant has therefore engaged in an intentional and systematic patter of trade dress infringement in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a), trade dress dilution, and unfair competition in that” the defendant’s website caters to the same class of consumers, the confusingly similar website design, which has resulted in actual confusion among a substantial customer confusion. The complaint also asserts causes of action for common law unfair competition and statutory unfair competition under Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.

The case is titled Zam Network, LLC, v. Curse, Inc., CV08-02224 PSG (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Posted by Milord A. Keshishian | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: 17200 Unfair Competition , Copyright Litigation , Lanham Act 43(a) , Trade Dress

Bookmark:

A Brea, CA restaurant/bar was sued for copyright infringement in Federal District Court in Los Angeles by copyright attorneys for several recording companies for publicly playing copyrighted music at the restaurant without a license from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. The complaint alleges that on January 11, 2008, presumably when their investigator was at Bar 330 in Brea, the three copyrighted musical compositions were publicly played and performed. Plaintiffs assert that the Brea Bar 330 will continue to publicly play and perform these songs unless they are enjoined by the Court.

The complaint alleges that ASCAP, on behalf of the copyright owners, warned the defendants that a copyright license was needed in order to publicly perform the copyrighted music at the restaurant/bar. The defendants, however, allegedly refused to pay for the license and continued to play the songs at issue. Plaintiffs request statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), of not more than $ 30,000.00 and not less than $ 750.00 for each copyrighted song. Plaintiffs also request that the court order the defendants to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: WB Music Corp., v. Corner Pockets, Inc. , CV08-01955 SVW (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) provides an increase in the statutory damages to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be intentional. Also, if a restaurant or public establishment unreasonably believed that it was exempt from licensing requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 110(5), the copyright plaintiff, in addition to other damages under section 504, will be entitled to two times the license fee which it should have paid for the preceding period of up to 3 years. Because of the varying affiliations between record companies and the licensing society, a license from each of the following licensing societies must be obtained to cover the music owned by the various recording companies:
ASCAP: 1-800-505-4052
BMI: 1-800-925-8451
SESAC: 1-800-826-9996

Posted by Milord A. Keshishian | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Copyright Litigation

Bookmark:

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for Illume Candles, Inc. filed a copyright declaratory relief of no infringement lawsuit, under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, in Federal District Court in Los Angeles, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement on Angela Adams Licensing, LLC’s copyrighted work. On March 31, 2008, Angela Adams' attorneys sent a letter to Illume accusing copyright infringement of two copyrighted works registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The accused infringing products are three of Illume’s candle packaging that have a link and chain graphic design. Illume denied that its packaging infringes on Angela Adams’ copyrighted works because it was independently developed and “the accused works lacked the requisite degree of similarity to the registered works to establish a claim of copyright infringement." Angela Adams was dissatisfied with Illume’s response and enclosed a recent court decision that was favorable to Adams, which led Illume to believe that Adams would enforce its copyrights against Illume. As such, an actual controversy existed between the parties and Illume seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the copyrights.

The case is titled Starlume, Inc. v. Angela Adams Licensing, LLC, et al., CV 08-02489 PA (C.D. Cal. 2008)

Posted by Milord A. Keshishian | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Copyright Litigation

Bookmark:

Los Angeles, CA – Godzilla knocked over buildings and stomped its way to the Federal District Court in Los Angeles to file suit against Subway because it’s furious over the use of its image in Subway restaurant commercials, which sandwiches it apparently doesn’t enjoy or endorse. Maybe Megalon, Godzilla’s nemesis, is interested in the gig? Toho Co., the owner of the Godzilla franchise, sued Doctor’s Associates, Inc., the owner of the Subway sandwich empire, for trademark infringement and copyright infringement for use of the Godzilla character in its “Five Dollar Footlong” sandwich commercials. “The commercial at issue, which was created for Subway by advertising agency McCarthy Mambro Bertino, LLC in support of Subway’s ‘Five Dollar Footlong’ sandwich promotion, features Godzilla attacking a Japanese city and then endorsing the sandwich by spreading his hands a foot apart.” The advertising agency is also sued as a defendant.

“At no time did Defendants seek or obtain Toho’s permission or consent to use or feature the Godzilla Character or any substantially or confusingly similar character in the Commercial.” Apparently, when Toho learned of the commercial, it demanded the defendants cease airing the commercial. “Rather, defendants have continued airing the Commercial on popular television programs, including the NCAA Basketball Tournament semi-final and Championship games” and American Idol. The Complaint estimates that the defendants have spent at least $20 million in TV-air-time alone. Toho alleges that Subway has made millions of dollars as a result of the unauthorized commercial use of the Godzilla character and seeks the disgorgement of Subway’s profits and its costs and attorneys’ fees.

WATCH THE COMMERCIAL:

The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Unfair competition and false designation of origin under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) Federal anti-dilution law violation, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (3) State anti-dilution law, California Business & Professions Code § 14330; (4) Common law unfair competition; (5) Unjust enrichment; and, (6) copyright infringement. The case is titled Toho Co., Ltd., v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., d/b/a Subway, et al., CV08-02511 GPS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Posted by Milord A. Keshishian | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Copyright Litigation , Lanham Act 43(a) , Trademark Litigation

Bookmark:

Los Angeles, CA – Garment industry 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 was purchased from an Italian art studio and the multi-element floral design was converted for printing on textiles. After plaintiff applied for and received copyright registration for this first design with the U.S. Copyright Office, it provided samples of fabric to defendant Wraps. The complaint alleges that Wraps even ordered and received one shipment of fabric bearing the first design. But instead of purchasing additional fabric from United Fabrics, Wraps is alleged to have copied the fabric design through third parties and sold garments bearing the copyrighted design to numerous retailers.

Plaintiff also purchased source artwork from an Italian art studio and created a second design for printing on textiles. Once again plaintiff received a copyright registration from the U.S. Copyright Office and provided samples of the fabric to defendant Swat. 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 Wraps and Swat because they agreed that they were receiving Plaintiffs copyrighted designs “with the express understanding and agreement that they were proprietary to Plaintiff, and if [either] wished to create product bearing said designs, it would have to do so through Plaintiff.” The case is titled United Fabrics International, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc. et al., CV08-01936 MMM (Central District Of California).

Posted by Milord A. Keshishian | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Copyright Litigation , License-Licensing

Bookmark:

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorney filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal District Court to protect a song from allegedly being copied by musician, singer, actor and comedian Jamie Foxx. In 1999, Plaintiffs, Trace Augcomfar and Marvin Paige, obtained a copyright registration for a musical composition titled “Losing Me In You.” In December, 2005, Jamie Foxx provided the vocals on an album entitled “Unpreditable,” featuring the musical composition entitled “Do What It Do.” The complaint alleges that the “Do What It Do” composition is strikingly similar to the musical composition written by the Plaintiffs in 1999, and the chorus, or musical “hook”, is identical. Plaintiffs allege that Foxx gained access to Plaintiffs’ song through a mutual acquaintance, Conrad Hilton. Plaintiffs contend that Foxx’s infringement was knowing, willful and intentional. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages of no less than $1 million, for an accounting of all gains, profits and advantages of Defendants, and attorneys fees and costs.

Posted by Milord A. Keshishian | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Copyright Litigation

Bookmark:

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys filed a jewelry copyright infringement lawsuit, in Los Angeles Federal District Court, on behalf of Sweet Romance Jewelry Mfg. for copying of protected jewelry designs. In 1997, Sweet Romance authored, as an employer for hire, a jewelry design entitled “Lady Caroline Lorgnette” (the “Work”). The Work was first sold in 1999 through the defendants’ competitors. On March 12, 2008 – only recently – Plaintiff submitted the Work to the U.S. Copyright Office for registration.

The complaint alleges that defendants, which are various entities related to the Home Shopping Network, began manufacturing and selling copies of the Work, which are virtually identical to Plaintiff’s work, except for the name given to the jewelry piece. The complaint alleges that the Defendants’ copies are cheap imitations manufactured in China and instead of the stones being made of Czech crystal, as represented on the Home Shopping Channel, the “stones” appear to be plastic or other inferior materials. (SIDE NOTE: If that is the case, it’s puzzling why the Plaintiff does not include a false advertising/unfair competition claim under the Lanham Act). The complaint continues that the defendants’ copy of the work is allegedly not sold in California because the high concentration of lead violates California’s strict environmental and safety regulations. Also, plaintiff alleges that Defendants had access to copies of the Work because they were involved in negotiations to market plaintiff’s work. The complaint seeks damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504. The case is titled: Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, CV08-02074 R (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: This case illustrates the need for early registration of copyrights in order to be entitled to statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. Because the plaintiff did not register its copyright within three months from publication or before the infringement commenced, 17 U.S.C. 412 prevents the plaintiff from recovering attorneys' fees or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. 504 and 505.

Posted by Milord A. Keshishian | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Copyright Litigation

Bookmark:

A Redondo Beach, CA restaurant was sued for copyright infringement by copyright attorneys for several recording companies for publicly playing copyrighted music at the restaurant without a license from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. The complaint lists five songs which are copyrighted by their individual authors with the U.S. Copyright Office, and the rights are owned by the record companies. The complaint alleges that on one night, presumably when their investigator was at Paulie’s Upper Deck Sports Grill, the five copyrighted musical compositions were publicly performed “for the entertainment and amusement of the patrons attending said premises, and defendants threaten to continue such infringing performances.”

The complaint alleges that plaintiff warned the defendant that a copyright license was needed in order to publicly perform the copyrighted music at the restaurant. Because the defendant allegedly refused to pay for the license, the defendant’s copyright infringement was intentional and willful. Plaintiffs request statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), of not more than $ 30,000.00 and not less than $ 750.00 for each copyrighted song. Plaintiffs also request that the court order the defendants to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Far Out Music v. Fratelli Brothers, Inc., CV08-01975 GPS (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) allows the statutory damages to be raised to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be knowingly conducted. Also, if a restaurant or public establishment unreasonably believed that it was exempt from licensing requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 110(5), the copyright plaintiff, in addition to other damages under section 504, will be entitled to two times the license fee which it should have paid for the preceding period of up to 3 years. Because of the varying affiliations between record companies and the licensing society, a license from each of the following licensing societies must be obtained to cover the music owned by the various recording companies:
ASCAP: 1-800-505-4052
BMI: 1-800-925-8451
SESAC: 1-800-826-9996

Posted by Milord A. Keshishian | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Copyright Litigation , License-Licensing

Bookmark:

Burbank, CA – Copyright attorney files copyright infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal District Court alleging infringement of Spiderman cartoon copyrights. BVS Entertainment, Inc. owns exclusive copyrights to episodes of the animated Spiderman television series from the 1960s. BVS alleges that Defendant Trans World had purported to license copyrights and provide copies of Spiderman to various entities around the country. In February, Trans World signed a settlement agreement acknowledging BVS’s copyrights, disclaiming its own, admitting infringement, and promising to cease and desist. However, as the complaint continues, Trans World began marketing rights to Spiderman again in violation of BVS’s copyrights and the settlement agreement.

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).

Posted by Milord A. Keshishian | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Copyright Litigation

Bookmark: