Los Angeles Intellectual Property Trademark Attorney Blog

Santa Ana, CA – BT Beverage Company sued The Coca Cola Company for a declaration of no trademark or design patent infringement. BT sells beverages in bottles that are shaped like sports balls including baseballs, basketballs, soccer balls, and golf balls. BT has filed numerous trademark applications with the USPTO to register its various bottle designs.

During the holidays, Coca Cola sells its beverages in spherical bottles shaped to be Christmas tree ornaments. Coca Cola’s bottle shape, however, was itself the subject of a prior claim of infringement by O-Company and OGO USA. In response, Coca Cola filed an opposition proceeding at the TTAB and also filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit in the Middle District of Tennessee. It appears that the parties resolved the dispute by assigning the disputed application and the resultant trademark registration – which is the subject of the instant lawsuit – to Coca Cola.

BT alleges that in September of 2009, Coca Cola sent a cease and desist letter charging infringement of the trade dress bottle design and Design Patent No. D554,523. BT responded by using Coca Cola’s previous stance against it by denying that Coca Cola had an exclusive right to round shaped bottles for beverage products. The parties’ inability to resolve the dispute resulted in this lawsuit. The case is GT Beverage Company, LLC v. The Coca Cola Company, SACV10-00209 JVS (C.D. Cal. 2010).

San Diego, CA – Trivitis, Inc. sued Ocean Spray for patent infringement alleging that its Cranergy™ drink infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,562,864. Read the complaint here. The ‘864 Patent is entitled “Catechin Multimers as Therapeutic Drug Delivery Agents” and was issued on May 13, 2003. Catechin is an antioxidant or flavonoid and is found in tea leaves. The patent basically covers the treatment of heart and valve disease by administration of these antioxidants, sometimes in combination with other drugs.

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 under 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 Trivitis, Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 10CV0316 JM (S.D. Cal. 2009).

Los Angeles, CA – UGG® boot manufacturer, Deckers Outdoor, filed a patent infringement and unfair competition lawsuit against Claire’s Stores and CBI Distributing. UGG® boots have set a fashion trend with young ladies wearing the lamb-skinned boots – to keep their feet and calves warm – with shorts, thereby allowing their knees and thighs to freeze. That’s not in the complaint, it’s just a personal observation. Now back to the regularly scheduled complaint: the UGG® line of boots includes the Classic Cardy™, which was introduced in 2007 and has a crochet upper with buttons on the lateral side. The Classic Cardy™ boot is the subject of U.S. Design Patent No. D582,650 (“the ‘650 Patent”).

Deckers alleges that Defendants sell allegedly infringing boots under the “Claire’s Botts” mark at significantly lower price points, thereby diminishing the market place for the genuine Cardy Boots™. Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim derives from the alleged sales of infringing boots creating a false association or affiliation with Deckers’ UGG® line of boots.

It’s unclear from the complaint whether Plaintiff is asserting a trade dress infringement claim, but at least they obtained a design patent for the boot – which is not a work protectable by copyright. By doing so, they avoid some costs and expenses in having to conduct surveys to establish trade dress rights and, further, a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The following Federal Circuit opinion provides a great comparison of the level of proof needed for each:

[T]he difference in weight given to empirical evidence is fully understandable in light of the stark differences between the elements required to show design patent infringement and trademark and trade dress infringement. ... [P]urchasers' likelihood of confusion as to the source of a good is a necessary factor for determining trademark and trade dress infringement. ... To show infringement, the holder of a trademark or trade dress therefore must have progressed to the manufacture and distribution of a 'purchasable' product. As a result, consumer behavior in the marketplace is a highly relevant factor in determining trademark and trade dress infringement. Since surveys and other empirical studies are ordinarily probative evidence of consumer behavior in the marketplace, such evidence has significance in determining trademark and trade dress infringement. In contrast, ... a different quantum of proof applies to design patent infringement, which does not concern itself with the broad issue of consumer behavior in the marketplace. ... The single element here required to show design patent infringement involves a much narrower field of inquiry. In short, a design patentee may prove infringement simply by showing that an ordinary observer would be deceived by reason of an accused device's ornamental design. ... Therefore, in showing design patent infringement there is ordinarily no compelling need for empirical evidence. Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corporation of America, 975 F.2d 815, 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992)

The case is Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Claire’s Stores, Inc., et al., CV09-09498 CBM (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Since Christmas is a mere four days away, I wanted to discover a “new and useful” method (35 USC § 101) to relay my Christmas greetings in a novel (35 USC § 102) and non-obvious (35 USC § 103) manner. To make sure that my Christmas wishes did not infringe on any other wishes, I decided to conduct a quick patent search. To my chagrin, due to U.S. Patent No. D472,182, I cannot – without infringing – impart my birthday wishes upon Jesus. And my licensing negotiations having fallen through, I figured I would just wish “Merry Christmas To All.” I wanted to make sure, however, that I didn’t infringe on any third-party trademark rights. Quickly running a search on the USPTO database, I thought my Christmas wishes would once again be thwarted by trademark application number 74/455073 for the “Merry Christmas To All” trademark. But my worries quickly dissipated because the application has long been abandoned. Thus, hoping that Santa does not bring me a common-law trademark lawsuit, “Merry Christmas To All and To All A Goodnight.” Note to self: copyright clearance.

During this Thanksgiving week, I would like to thank the readers of my two-cents (if it’s worth that) and intellectual property law for providing interesting – at least to me – topics to blog. How does intellectual property apply to Thanksgiving? Well, the first invention applies to how my turkey will be prepared . . . in a deep fryer of course. It may sound strange and greasy, but deep fried turkeys are moist, crispy, and delicious. U.S. Patent No. 5,896,810 covers the turkey frying apparatus that I’ve come to appreciate. After you’ve tasted a deep-fried turkey, you won’t go back to oven roasted. Also, when you realize you can cook a 14 pound turkey in about 45 minutes, your oven will thank you for going green.

Now, the next invention I will probably pass on. U.S. Patent No. D397,955 relates to a turkey decoration in general. More specifically, the invention allows you to dress up a pumpkin to look like a turkey. It’s a good thing Benjamin Franklin didn’t get his way or the pumpkin turkey may have been the national bird.

Santa Ana, CA – Bird-B-Gone, Inc. (“BBG”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bird Barrier America, Inc. (“BBA”) over the sale of spike strips used to repel birds. BBG is the owner of US Patent No. 7,596,910 entitled “Unitary configured Bird Repellant Apparatus,” which was issued on October 6, 2009, but was filed over ten years ago – a rather long pendency period. The invention generally relates to a unitary piece of injection molded plastic with different sets of sharp spikes having variable heights and an elongated base that is attached to a surface. When mounted to a ledge, for example, the invention prevents birds from landing or perching thereon. The picture to the right, courtesy of Plaintiff's website, illustrates the invention at work. Defendant’s “Polly Spike” product is accused of infringing certain claims of the ‘910 patent. Plaintiff seeks an injunction and monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial. The case is Bird-B-Gone, Inc. v. Bird Barrier America, Inc. et al., SACV09-01185 DOC (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Los Angeles, CA – Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels, Inc. (“MHT”) has been manufacturing custom wheels for automobiles since 1986, which wheels are sold to automobile dealers and after-market parts retailers. MHT was issued U.S. Patent No. D578,459 for its “Illusion” wheel design and U.S. Patent No. D585,808 for its “Bomber” wheel design. Defendant MKW Alloy, Inc. is accused of selling, without authorization, two wheel designs that allegedly infringe MHT’s patents. The case is Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels, Inc. v. MKW Alloy, Inc., CV 09-5695 VBF (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Riverside, CA – TMI Products, Inc. is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent Number 7,040,697 (“the ‘697 patent”) and U.S. Patent Number 7,407,227 (“the ‘227 patent”) both entitled “Headrest Having an Integrated Video Screen.” The ‘227 patent is a continuation of the ‘697 patent, having the same specification but with varying claim scope. The patents generally relate to video display units that are pivotally mounted within the back of a headrest such that the plane of the video monitor can be pivoted about both a horizontal and vertical axis.

TMI accuses Rosen’s “Dual DVD Headrest Replacement Systems” sold as the AV7000 and AV75000 models of infringing both patents. TMI alleges that Rosen’s infringement is willful and intentional and demands treble damages and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The case is TMI Products, Inc. v. Rosen Entertainment Systems, L.P., EDCV 09-01300 SGL (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Los Angeles, CA – PWP Industries filed a complaint for declaratory judgment that its food storage containers do not infringe Inline Plastic’s U.S. Patent No. 7,118,003 (“the ‘003 Patent”). PWP manufactures tamper-resistant plastic packaging for a variety of foods, from vegetables to bakery goods. The ‘003 Patent relates to a plastic container having a hinged cover that engages the base container. The tamper-resistant indicator is a strip that spans from the cover to the base; thereby, preventing access to the interior of the container without breaking the strip. After being accused of infringement, PWP filed the instant action because “an actual controversy existed between [Inline] and [PWP] concerning the alleged infringement of the ‘003 patent. See MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (rejecting the “reasonable apprehension of suit” test). The case is PWP Industries v. Inline Plastics Corp., CV09-4417 ODW (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Michael Jackson undeniably lived a troubled life, but he was also a music icon that left his mark on popular culture through his dance moves and videos. People often incorrectly credit him with inventing the moonwalk. Although he made it famous, he copied the move from other break-dancers. Michael Jackson, however, did invent a dance move for which he was awarded U.S. Patent No. 5,255,452, thereby also contributing to intellectual property culture. In his “Smooth Criminal” video, MJ and his backup dancers lean forward in a gravity-defying manner to an impossible angle.

By filing a patent application for the “Method and Means for Creating Anti-Gravity Illusion,” Michael Jackson let the cat out of the bag. The heel of the shoe is designed to detachably engage a hitch that retractably projects through the stage floor. By anchoring the heel to the floor, the dancer can lean forward and the illusion of defying gravity is achieved. His untimely death has subjected Michael Jackson’s personal choices to debate, but his dedication to creating and protecting his art is unquestionable.