Los Angeles Intellectual Property Trademark Attorney Blog

Santa Ana, CA – Kruse Technology has filed a patent infringement suit against Defendants Daimler AG; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Detroit Diesel Corporation; Freightliner Corporation; Western Star Truck Sales, Inc.; Volkswagen AG; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi of America, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Cummins Inc.; and Chrysler Group LLC. The Defendants are accused of manufacturing engines that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,265,562, 6,058,904, and 6,405,704. The ‘562, ‘904, and ‘704 patents are all entitled “Internal Combustion Engine With Limited Temperature Cycle”, but have different claims.

The complaint, however, does not appear to provide sufficient information to pass a Rule 12 motion to dismiss. In 2007, the Supreme Court’s Twombly decision stated that under Rule 8(a)(2) a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). In 2009, the Supreme Court’s Iqbal decision expanded the application of Twombly to all civil cases. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). Thus, a complaint will be dismissed uner Rule 12(b)(6) if it fails to meet the Twombly pleading standard. See e.g. Anticancer, Inc. v. Xenogen Corp., 248 F.R.D. 278 (S.D. Cal. 2007)

The case is Kruse Technology Partnership v. Daimler AG, et al., SACV-10-1066 AG (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – Brian Everett filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Endeavor Talent Agency, LLC, alleging that his treatment “El Royale” was used to create CBS’s “Welcome to the Captain” television show. Everett claims that he developed the “El Royale” television concept in 2005 and early 2006. In addition, he claims to have written the script and shot key concept segments to assist in the sale of the program concept to third parties.

Everett alleges that in March of 2006 he sent the concept shots and script to a director’s agent at Endeavor, but heard nothing. He again claims to have sent the script to the same agent in 2007, and this time it made it to a television agent, but Endeavor declined to represent Everett because of its representation of other talent working on a similar concept. Everett alleges that “Endeavor provided Everett’s ‘El Royale’ concept to the creators of ‘Welcome to the Captain’ – and they thereafter used Everett’s script, visuals, story and character concepts in developing ‘Welcome to the Captain,’ with Endeavor’s knowledge and consent.” The case is Brian Everett v. Endeavor Talent Agency, LLC, CV10-4895 AHM (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – Rapper Mack 10, real name Dedrick Rolison, is being sued for copyright infringement for allegedly using Ervin “EP” Pope’s musical compositions. (Read the complaint here). Pope is a music producer who creates, mixes, and remixes audio recordings for various music recording artists and record companies. He alleges that in 2009, he produced and composed underlying musical compositions at the request of Mack 10 and record companies for a total of $60,000.00. The complaint contends that because there was no written agreement and Pope was not paid, he remained the copyright owner in the compositions, which he has registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Mack 10 is accused of using the underlying musical compositions in his songs “Big Balla” and “It’s Your Life,” which are on his latest “Soft White” album. “Plaintiff EP was credited on the Infringing Album with authoring the Infringing Songs, however, as stated, Plaintiff EP never signed an agreement authorizing any of the Defendants to sell or exploit the Infringing Songs embodying Plaintiff’s Musical Compositions for commercial gain.” The case is Ervin Pope v. Fontana Distribution, LLC, et al., CV10-4907 MRP (C.D. Cal. 2010).

PRACTICE NOTE: In addition to the federal copyright infringement cause of action, Pope asserts a common law copyright infringement cause of action, which appears to be preempted by the Copyright Act. Mention v. Gessell, 714 F.2d 87, 90 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The Copyright Act of 1976 preempts common law copyright claims, unless the claims arose from undertakings commenced before January 1, 1978."). Because Pope asserts that he composed the music in 2009, the common law copyright infringement cause of action is preempted. See 17 U.S.C. § 301(a).

“Big Balla” video:

San Francisco, CA – The Wine Group has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District Court of California against Diageo PLC. Plaintiff sells a wine-based beverage that contains tea flavors under its Olde Savannah Southern Style Sweet Tea trademark, which it started using in December of 2009. According to the complaint, Plaintiff has sold over 29,000 cases of the beverage since December and plans on expanding the use of the mark to vodka-based beverages. In November of 2009, Plaintiff wisely filed an intent-to-use application with the USPTO prior to launching its product.

Diageo is the world’s largest wine, beer, and spirits company and owns the Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker, Captain Morgan, Jose Cuervo, and Guinness brands. Plaintiff alleges that Diageo has recently introduced a vodka-based sweet tea beverage under the Savannah Tea trademark. Because Plaintiff allegedly has priority over Diageo in using the Savannah mark, it contends that “Diageo’s use of the Savannah Tea mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers in a variety of ways. For example, consumers are likely to believe, erroneously, (a) that Diageo’s alcohol-based sweet tea is somehow associated, affiliated, or connected with TWG’s alcohol-based sweet tea, or vice-versa or, (b) that Diageo’s alcohol-based sweet tea is sponsored, authorized, or approved by TWG, or vice-versa.” The case is The Wine Group LLC v. Diageo PLC, et al., CV10-2879 DMR (N.D. Cal. 2010).

On a related note, it appears that The Wine Group's Savannah trademark application is the subject of an opposition proceeding filed by Spier Wines before the TTAB. The parties, however, have filed a joint motion to suspend proceedings in furtherance of settlement discussions.

Plaintiff Philip Duff is suing True Religion jeans for copying his horseshoe pocket design that he registered with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in 1995, long before True Religion began using the horseshoe design on its jeans. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, Duff began using the horseshoe design trademark on jeans in the mid 80’s.

Duff alleges that while True Religion was developing its jeans in September of 2002, its CEO received a copy of Duff’s trademark registration record from the USPTO and was fully aware of Duff’s senior rights. Also, on December 10, 2003, its COO allegedly received another copy of Duff’s trademark registration record. “Despite such knowledge, Defendants proceeded to use in commerce on their jeans a ‘horseshoe’ design that is confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ mark.” Defendants are also accused of describing their trademark as a modified “U” in their USPTO trademark applications and failing to disclose to the trademark examining attorney that they were fully aware of Duff’s prior registration.

Duff is asking the Court to cancel True Religion’s “horseshoe” design trademark because it was obtained by fraud. In addition, Duff seeks undisclosed monetary damages for the infringement and a permanent injunction preventing True Religion’s continued use of the horseshoe design. The case is Philip Andrew Duff, et al. v. Guru Denim, Inc. et al., CV10-4611 ODW (C.D. Cal. 2010).

PRACTICE NOTE: I always found it odd that in its counterfeiting lawsuits (here and here) True Religion always mentioned its design patent for the horseshoe design, but would never assert a cause of action for patent infringement. Now that it appears True Religion was allegedly aware of prior art that was not disclosed to the Patent Office, its decision to forego patent infringement claims becomes lucid.

Los Angeles, CA – Cartoonist/illustrator B.K. Taylor created the Odd Rods group of trading cards and sticker series in 1969 for the Donruss company. The theme for the cartoons was monsters driving cars, hot rods, and motorcycles. Around 2006, Plaintiff DZ Hart allegedly acquired the copyright and trademark rights to the collection. Subsequently, DZ Hart and Taylor entered into a consulting agreement for Taylor to design artwork for DZ. Plaintiff alleges that no products were created as a result of the agreement and it was terminated in January of 2009.

DZ then contracted a third-party to work on the project, which third party was contacted by Taylor’s attorney in June of this year and notified of Taylor’s claim of ownership in the Odd Rods intellectual property. Taylor allegedly sent the third-party a discussion draft of a proposed cooperation agreement between Taylor and EZ, which EZ claims is unenforceable because it was not executed. DZ alleges that Taylor never had exclusive rights to the disputed intellectual property and, if Taylor ever had any, the rights have lapsed due to abandonment and/or termination of all such rights and are now in the public domain. DZ has filed the declaratory judgment action asking the Court to rule that Taylor has no intellectual property rights in the Odd Rods characters. A copy of the complaint is available here. The case is DZ Hart Ltd. Liability Co., v. B.K. Taylor, CV10-4489 PSG (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Here's the promotional video that also provides a history of "Odd Rods" narrated by Scott Baio:

Los Angeles, CA – Forever 21 is the ubiquitous clothing and accessories retailer that began doing business in 1989. Forever 21 is the owner of numerous USPTO registrations for its “21” family of trademarks, including “Forever 21”, “XXI” and “XXI forever”.

In December of 2009, Plaintiff asserts that it demanded that Defendant immediately stop using Plaintiffs’ trademarks on clothing and to remove the Forever 26 sign from its retail outlet. Defendant allegedly agreed to do so, but Plaintiff claims that it recently obtained evidence of Defendant’s continued use of Plaintiff’s marks. Thus, the instant lawsuit was filed for trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act § 43(a) (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)), and dilution.

This is not Forever 21’s first court rodeo, but it’s one of the few as a Plaintiff. As Stylist.com put it: “Forever 21 has been sued for copyright infringement so many times, we've lost count.” The case is Forever 21, Inc. v. Forever 26, CV10-4331 CBM (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – Summit Entertainment is the producer and distributor of the highly successful Twilight motion picture franchise, including The Twilight Saga: New Moon, and the soon to be released Eclipse. The movies are about a teenage girl, Isabella (Bella”) Swan, who falls in love with a vampire, Edward Cullen. Bella’s other suitor in the film is Jacob Black, a werewolf, which love triangle always makes for a good motion picture franchise. Summit is the owner of several federally registered trademarks for “TWILIGHT” and also owns the trademark for “BELLA”, which trademarks have been used for clothing. Summit is also the copyright owner in the promotional image (shown below) depicting the character Bella from the Twilight movies.

Defendants B.B. Dakota, Modcloth, and Metropark are accused of selling jackets using the “Twilight” and “Bella” trademarks in conjunction with the Bella image without authorization. Summit not only seeks Defendants’ profits from the sales of the allegedly infringing products, but also asks the Court to treble the damages because Defendants are accused of intentional infringement. The case is Summit Entertainment, LLC, v. B.B. Dakota, Inc., CV10-4328 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – Humphrey Bogart appeared in more than seventy motion pictures, including classics such as Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and The African Queen. Bogart, LLC, the plaintiff in the case, is the successor-in-interest of all intellectual property rights and assets associated with Humphrey Bogart, which rights were acquired from his children. Bogart owns a USPTO trademark registration for the trademark “BOGART” for use in connection with the sale of furniture. Bogart has previously licensed the trademark to Thomasville for a line of furniture products using the name and the trademark “Bogart.”

Defendants Plummers, Inc., Scandinavian Desings, Inc. and Dania , Inc. are allegedly affiliated companies that are accused of using the name and trademark “Bogart” without authorization in connection with a line of furniture. Plaintiff claims that Defendants advertising used the “Bogart” trademark along with copy referencing a “great retro design” and in a “deco style” to create a false association because it conjures up memories of the “style in the 1940’s and 50’s when Humphrey Bogart was the world’s most popular, acclaimed and sought-after motion picture actor.” Plaintiff asserts causes of action for misappropriation of right of publicity (Cal. Civ. Code §3344.1), trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and trademark dilution. The case is Bogart, LLC v. Plummers, Inc. et al., CV10-4151 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – Dr. Dre sued the new Death Row records for breach of contract, trademark infringement, false advertising, violation of the right of publicity, and unfair competition. Details blogged here, and read the complaint here. Dr. Dre alleged that he’s owed royalties on his music album “The Crhonic,” and others, and that defendants have released a “remastered” version of the album, “The Chronic Re-Lit & From the Vault”, as well as a “Greatest Hit” album without his permission.

The Court denied the motion as to the breach of contract and constructive trust causes of action. The Court, however, dismissed the Lanham Act causes of action because the Court noted that Dr. Dre did not plead that the alterations made to the work were substantial enough to trigger the “Monty Python” rule. Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 538 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1976) (editing of “Monty Python” show for television broadcast constituted authorship or endorsement of a substantially modified version of the work to constitute trademark infringement). The Court continued:

As to plaintiff’s allegation that defendants have used his name and likeness, including the original photograph from the jacket cover of “The Chronic,” the Court finds that these allegations fail to state a claim that defendants have over-represented plaintiff’s contribution to “Re-Lit,” given that defendants accurately identify plaintiff as the author of the original masters and that defendant used a substantially same photograph from the original album jacket cover, and did not use a current picture so to imply that plaintiff recently contributed to the re-issued album.

Similarly, the Court dismissed the right of publicity claim because “plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that defendants’ use of his name and likeness is more than incidental to the protected publication of his albums, and thus defendants’ use is protected by the First Amendment. See Page v. Something Weird Video, 960 F. Supp. 1438, 1442-43 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (finding that defendant’s use of plaintiff’s likeness was protected by the First Amendment because the advertisement was incidental to the protected publication of the film videos).”

The unfair competition claim was also dismissed because the elements are similar to a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act. See Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 944 F.2d 1446, 1457 (9th Cir. 1991) (“An action for unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. is substantially congruent to a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act.”). Order available here.

The dismissal was without prejudice subject to an amended complaint being filed within 30 days. The case is Andre Young v. Wideawake Death Row Entertainment, LLC et al., CV10-01019 CAS (C.D.Cal. 2010).