Los Angeles Intellectual Property Trademark Attorney Blog

Los Angeles, CA – Plaintiff Anthony J. Antonious is the inventor of the “Metalwood Type Golf Club Head,” which is the subject of U.S. Design Patent D499,157. Simply put, a design patent covers the ornamental design or aesthetic configuration of a depicted product. Whereas a utility patent covers the way a product works or is manufactured, e.g. a new club head manufactured to have a larger sweet spot. But I digress. In this design patent case, Plaintiff alleges that Tour Edge’s golf club heads, including the Tour Edge V25, Tour 9 Proto, and Tour Edge Bazooka, incorporate the patented design and infringe the ‘157 patent. Plaintiff further alleges inducement of and contributory patent infringement. The case is Trust of Anthony J. Antonious v. Tour Edge Golf Manufacturing, Inc., CV10-02636 RGK (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – Zynga Game Network is a social gaming company and provides numerous games, such as Zynga Poker, Mafia Wars, FarmVille, YoVille, Cafe World and Word Twist, that are available on Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, iPhone and iPod Touch, among others. Zynga has several pending USPTO trademark applications for its Mafia Wars, Farmville and Yoville trademarks and several copyright registrations for the games as well. Zynga asserts that its games have been a runaway success, with an increase from 1.3 million daily users in July of 2008 to 9.5 million daily users in May of 2009.

When players sign up with Zynga to play the games, they receive a certain amount of virtual currency, which amount can increase through continued play and purchased directly from Zynga. The virtual currency is then used to purchase virtual goods that are used in the games. The “Terms of Service” prohibit the use of virtual currency or goods for real-world money and Zynga does not authorize any third party to sell virtual currency or virtual goods.

In the lawsuit, Zynga accuses Defendant of allowing users to post and sell virtual currency or virtual goods to be used in Znyga’s games on its playerauctions.com website. Zynga claims that in addition to using Zynga’s trademarks without authorization, Defendant profits from the sale of virtual currency and goods by selling them for real-world money in violation of the “Terms of Service” agreement. Further, Defendant is accused of using images of Zynga’s games without authorization, which use infringes its copyrights. The case is Zynga Game Network, Inc. v. Playerauctions.com, CV10-2576 CBM (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – A copyright infringement lawsuit was filed by MGA Entertainment against QVC, Brookstone, and Rooftop Group USA. MGA claims that it created the Land Sea RC® amphibious vehicle that kids can remotely control. MGA is the owner of two copyright registrations covering the toy designs. MGA alleges that Rooftop “arranged for the manufacture and sale of a product entitled RC Land-and-Sea Mobile” that are sold through retailers such as QVC and Brookstone.

In addition to the copyright infringement claims, MGA asserts unfair competition claims under both Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and California common law. The state causes of action, however, seem to be preempted as they arise from the same operative facts as the copyright claim. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 US 23 (2003); Fractional Villas, Inc. v. Tahoe Clubhouse, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39522 (S.D. Cal. 2009)(dismissing § 17200 claim because it was preempted by the Copyright Act). The case is MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. Brookstone, Inc., et al., CV10-2463 GW (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – TI Beverage Group, owner of the www.truebloodwine.com website, sued retailer Hot Topic and HBO executives Sophia Chang and James Costas for trademark infringement and unfair competition. TI makes both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and has used Vampire® as its trademark, in addition to other vampire related marks such as Vamp® and Dracola®. In 2009, TI purchased Trueblood Winery, LLC, which had been in business since 2002.

In 2008, HBO televised the True Blood television show in which the characters drink a fictional drink called Tru Blood. TI alleges that Omni Consumer Products entered into a licensing agreement with HBO to manufacture and sell a blood orange drink labeled Tru Blood in September of 2009. TI previously filed suit and notified the defendants of the alleged infringement and after not discovering the products on the shelves, believed that the product had been scrapped. TI alleges that it recently found the Tru Blood products at Hot Topic and filed the instant trademark infringement lawsuit. The case is TI Beverage Group, Ltd v. Hot Topin, Inc. et al., CV10-02089 RGK (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Hyundai’s website had a “build your own vehicle” (“BYO”) feature and a parts catalogue feature. The BYO feature allowed users to build their own vehicle by responding to choices on a menu, including color, pricing, engine, options, etc. Orion IP, LLC sued Hyundai for infringing a patented method for generating customized product proposals for potential customers of an automobile dealer (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,615,342 and 5,367,627). Hyundai sought a defense under its commercial general liability policies, which was denied. Hyundai lost at trial and the jury awarded $34 million in damages to Orion.

Hyundai then sued its insurers National Union Fire Insurance and American Home Assurance Company in the Central District of California, where it lost on summary judgment because the district court ruled that patent infringement did not constitute “advertising injury” and was not covered under the liability policies. Further, the district court held that Hyundai was “unable to demonstrate a causal connection between its advertising[] and Orion’s alleged injury.”

The California Supreme Court has specified three required elements to establish a duty to defend for an “advertising injury” claim:

[I]n order for [Hyundai] to have a reasonable expectation of coverage under [Defendants’] policy for “advertising injury” [it] must show that: (1) [it] was engaged in “advertising” during the policy period when the alleged “advertising injury” occurred; (2) [Orion’s] allegations created a potential for liability under one of the covered offenses (i.e., misappropriation of advertising ideas); and (3) a causal connection existed between the alleged injury and the “advertising.”

There was no dispute whether the advertising occurred during the policy period. The Court found that Orion had alleged “advertising injury” in that Hyundai’s BYO feature constituted “marketing methods, marketing systems” that fit within the definition of advertising.

The Ninth Circuit then determined that Orion’s patent infringement claim constituted a “misappropriation of advertising ideas.”

Orion patented a method of displaying information to the public at large for the purpose of facilitating sales, i.e., a method of advertising. And Orion’s complaint alleged that Hyundai violated that method patent by using the patented techniques as part of its own “marketing method” or “marketing system.” In other words, Orion patented a “process or invention which could reasonably be considered an ‘advertising idea,’ ” Mez, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 733, and Orion “allege[d] violation of a method patent involving advertising ideas,” Homedics, 315 F.3d at 1141. “In the context of the facts and circumstances of this case,” Mez, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 733, Orion’s patent infringement claim alleged the “misappropriation of advertising ideas.”

With the final “causal connection” factor, there must be a link between the advertisement and the alleged advertising injury. Here, the Court analyzed whether the advertising itself caused the injury – where there is coverage, or the advertising merely displayed an infringing product – where there is no coverage.

Here, the use of the BYO feature in the website is itself an infringement of the patent because it is the use of the BYO feature that violates the patent (and not the design of the car, for instance, or the method of manufacturing the car, or the car’s engine, or anything related to the car for sale). Furthermore, and critically, it is that use that caused the injuries alleged by Orion. See Orion’s complaint (“Hyundai has been and now is directly infringing . . . the ’342 patent . . . by, among other things, methods practiced on its various websites . . . using . . . marketing methods [and] marketing systems . . . covered by one or more claims of the ’342 patent to the injury of Orion.”). Accordingly, there is a direct causal connection between the advertisement (i.e., the use of the BYO feature on the website) and the advertising injury (i.e., the patent infringement). Because the use of the patented method was itself an advertisement that caused the injuries alleged in the third-party complaint, Hyundai has established the requisite causal connection.

Thus, the Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurers on all claims, and instructed the district court to grant summary judgment to Hyundai on its duty to defend cause of action and to conduct further proceedings on Hyundai’s three other claims. The case is Hyundai Motor America v. National Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 08-56527 (9th Cir. 2010). Copy of the ruling is here.

Only days away from Apple's launch of its new iPad product, it has purchased the iPad trademark from Fujitsu. When Apple announced the product's iPad mark, Fujitsu quickly laid claim to the trademark, which was filed in 2003, but has yet to register. In order to avert any interruption in iPad's distribution, Apple apparently believed it should just purchase the trademark instead of engaging in a protracted trademark battle.

Santa Ana, CA – The Southern-style chef Paula Deen has made “Hey Ya’ll!” her trademark phrase on the Food Network, while refusing to make anything remotely healthy that excludes her beloved butter, cheese, and fried foods. Maybe because of her love of butter, however, she has been sued for trademark infringement for selling cooking accessories under the “Butter Bell” trademark.

Plaintiff registered its Butter Bell® trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2002, and has since become incontestable. Plaintiff initially used its Butter Bell® mark on ceramic crocks, but has since expanded its line of goods to include gourmet food related products. Plaintiff contends that its Butter Bell® products are sold through numerous channels, including on the Food Network and Paula Deen's own “Cooking with Paula Deen” magazine.

Plaintiff alleges that QVC is a significant customer of its Butter Bell® products, where Paula Deen appeared to promote and market the infringing crock product. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants previously asked the Plaintiff to develop a Butter Bell® product which included a Paula Deen logo. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ infringement is willful and intentional.

Looking on the bright side, being hit with a trademark infringement lawsuit doesn't hurt as bad as getting hit with frozen ham:

The case is L. Tremain, Inc. v. Paula Deen, et al., SACV10-00322 AG (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – William Saroyan, the Academy Award and Pulitzer Prize winning author and screenwriter, co-wrote “Come On-A My House” with his cousin Ross Bagdasarian, the creator of “Alvin and the Chipmunks.”

Saroyan’s son and sole heir, Aram, alleges ownership of fifty percent of the copyright in the song by his 2006 termination – under 17 U.S.C. 304(c) – of an earlier transfer from his father to

Continue reading "Aram Saroyan Sues Over Copyright Ownership Of “Come On A My House” Song" »

Central District of California – Comic book author Jack Kirby’s heirs are suing Marvel and Disney (complaint available here) to terminate the copyrights in the popular Spider Man, Iron Man, X-Men, The Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk, The Avengers, Thor, Nick Fury and Ant-Man comics, which Kirby authored or co-authored between 1958 and 1963. Plaintiffs allege that during this period, Kirby was not an employee of any of Marvel’s predecessors and the works were not a work-for-hire because he was a freelancer without any written agreements. In 1972, Marvel’s predecessor, Magazine Management Co., entered into a written agreement with Kirby whereby the copyrights in Kirby’s works were assigned for additional compensation.

Because the works were created before 1978, Plaintiffs assert that they can terminate the transfer Kirby's copyrights under 17 U.S.C. § 304(c). Thus, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with termination notices on September 16, 2009. The copyrights are scheduled to revert to the heirs beginning in 2014, which defendants expectedly refute. As a result, Plaintiffs request a declaration from the Court that the termination notices were proper and that the copyright interests will be recaptured. In addition, Plaintiffs ask the Court to determine the split of royalties from co-owned works moving forward. Further, Plaintiffs seek the return of Kirby’s original artwork that is currently in Defendants’ possession. Finally, Plaintiffs assert a Lanham Act cause of action for Defendants’ failure to accredit Kirby as the author or co-author of the underlying works on which X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The Incredible Hulk movies were based. The case is Kirby v. Marvel Entertainment, Inc., SACV10-00289 CJC (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Marvel Entertainment has also sued Kirby's heirs in the Southern District of New York. Details here.

Los Angeles, CA – Drive-In Music Company sued the musical group “The Heavy,” CBS, NFL and others for copyright infringement. In 1969, Arlester Christian wrote the musical composition entitled “Let a Woman Be a Woman, (and Let a Man Be a Man),” which was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. All the rights to the song were then assigned to Plaintiff in the same year. Here’s the Plaintiff’s musical composition:

Plaintiff alleges that The Heavy composed the “How You Like Me Now?” in 2009, which song is included on their “The House That Dirt Built” compact disc. “The sound recording and musical composition of HOW YOU LIKE willfully infringes the musical composition, ‘LET A WOMAN,’ and uses the identical melody as ‘LET A WOMAN.’” Here’s the Defendants’ composition:

The NFL and CBS became defendants for airing a KIA car commercial incorporating The Heavy’s song during the Super Bowl®. Plaintiff alleges that the infringement is willful and intentional and demands enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. I will go out on a limb and predict that this case will settle quickly. The case is Drive-In Music Co., Inc. v. CBS Corporation et al., CV10-01783 JFW (C.D. Cal. 2010).