Articles Posted in Lanham Act 43(a) – 15 USC 1125

trademark-sue-ebay-sellers-candyshell-speck-speculative-design-cases.pngLos Angeles, CA – Speck Products manufactures carrying cases for electronic devices, including the iPad, iPhone, iPod, and Blackberry. The products are sold bearing the Speck® or Candyshell® trademarks. Last week, Speck filed numerous trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuits against numerous eBay sellers alleging sales of counterfeit electronic device cases. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants use images and names confusingly similar or identical to Plaintiff’s Marks to confuse consumer and aid in the promotion and sales of its unauthorized and counterfeit product.”

One of the numerous cases is Speculative Product Design, Inc. v. PPG Enterprize, CV1100160 VBF (C.D. Cal. 2011).

watch-trademark-jewelry-lawsuit-infringement-red-gold-rolex.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Rolex must be seeing red after being sued by Solid 21 for trademark infringement for using “red gold” on, you’ll never guess, red gold jewelry. But Rolex isn’t alone and can commiserate with the other 13 or so other defendants that Solid 21 is simultaneously suing for using what appears to be a generic term. Red gold, also known as rose gold, is made by alloying gold with copper. Although Solid 21’s trademark registration (see here) discloses that “red gold” is used on “fine jewelry made of a special alloying of gold with a distinct color made into fine jewelry”, it does not disclose that red gold is used on red gold jewelry. I don’t think Solid 21 can beat the Egyptian mummies’ first use date for “red gold” jewelry. See here.

The case is Solid 21, Inc. v. Rolex Watch USA, Inc., CV11-0449 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2011).

monster-cable-trademark-infringement-lawsuit-los-angeles-california-court.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Trademark bully Monster Cable, as it has been anointed by others here and here, seems to be on a trademark infringement lawsuit rampage against eBay sellers of monster products. Maybe the slew of trademark lawsuits is in response to the court’s denial of the temporary restraining order in its and Beats Electronics’ design patent lawsuit against Fanny Wang Headphone company.

Whatever the reason, it’s interesting that among the six causes of action for trademark infringement, dilution, etc., there is no cause of action for trademark counterfeiting. Even more so when the complaint alleges that Monster Cable’s private investigator purchased the items on eBay, they were tested, and deemed to be counterfeit: “Defendant has, without the consent of Plaintiff, offered to sell and sold within the United States (including within this judicial district) goods that were neither made by Plaintiff nor by a manufacturer authorized by Plaintiff (such goods are hereafter referred to as “Counterfeit Goods”).” Maybe Monster Cable’s perplexing strategy will crystallize as the cases proceed to trial, assuming the eBay sellers can afford to mount a defense against this alleged trademark bully.

The case is Monster Cable Products, Inc. v. Wireovia, LLC et al., CV10-10010 DSF (C.D. Cal. 2010).

copyright-infringement-sons-of-anarchy-tv-show.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Fox is the owner of all copyrights in its “Sons of Anarchy” television show airing on FX. The dramatic television series follows a notorious outlaw motorcycle club battling outside threats to protect its livelihood “while ensuring that their simple, sheltered town of Charming, California remains exactly that – charming.” The complaint asserts that “Sons of Anarchy” is the most-watched scripted original series on cable television, surpassing the Emmy and Golden Globe award-winning series “Nip/Tuck” and “The Shield” with an average of 3.1 million weekly viewers. Not surprisingly, Fox sells show related merchandise and has a registered USPTO trademark for “Sons of Anarchy” and several pending applications.

Fox claims that in August of 2009 it discovered Defendants were selling clothing incorporating the Sons of Anarchy trademark and Grim Reaper design at the annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota. In response to Fox’s cease and desist letter, Defendants claimed that the “shirts did not sell and it was a complete waste of my time.” In the spring of 2010 Fox discovered the same defendants allegedly selling infringing items through the www.supportsoa.com website. In response to another C & D letter, Defendants claimed that they had simply forgotten to take the site down and they had not sold any merchandise. Fox then asserts that a few months later it discovered that Defendants were attempting to sell infringing products to Fox’s potential distributors, including Harley-Davidson stores. Fox further alleges that Defendants have recently sold infringing products at their own physical stores. Fox was forced to sue for copyright and trademark infringement and unfair competition. The case is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Renegade Classics, et al. CV10-8565 SVW (C.D. Cal. 2010).

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWuygn0ibYU
 

trademark-attorney-tacos-chronic-infringement-lawsuit.jpgSanta Ana, CA – Chronic Tacos Enterprises (“CTE”) is a franchisor of Mexican food restaurants under its Chronic® and Chronic Tacos® trademarks. Defendants are alleged to be former temporary licensees at the Huntington Beach location, which license was terminated when CTE’s founders ceased being shareholders in the Huntington Beach location. CTE alleges that Defendants have failed to execute a franchise agreement to operate the location, thus necessitating the lawsuit. The case is Chronic Tacos Enterprises, Inc. v. Chronic Tacos Huntington Beach, Inc. et al., SACV10-01414 DOC (C.D. Cal. 2010).

US-trademark-attorney-gray-market-manzanita-sol-pepsi-USA-mexico.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Pepsi’s subsidiary owns the Manzanita Sol® trademark that is used on apple flavored soft drinks. Manzanita Sol® is Pepsi’s second most popular brand in Mexico. Pepsi has sold in the U.S. millions of dollars worth of Manzanita Sol® sodas through its authorized bottlers.

Pepsi accuses SPE Trading of importing soft drinks manufactured in Mexico bearing the Pepsi® and Manzanita Sol® trademarks that Pepsi does not authorize for sale in the U.S. Pepsi alleges that the Mexican product sold by SPE is materially different in many respect from authorized products sold in the U.S., e.g. the Mexican product does not comply with the labeling regulations of the Food and Drug Administration. Pepsi alleges that in response to a cease and desist letter, SPE had previously agreed to stop importing and selling the gray market product. But based upon alleged recent purchases of the gray market Manzanita Sol® product, Pepsi filed the instant trademark infringement and dilution action. The case is Pepsico, Inc. et al. v. SPE Trading, Inc., CV10-6833 DDP (C.D. Cal. 2010).

PRACTICE NOTE: U.S. trademark owners can prevent the importation and/or sale of gray goods that are “materially different” from those sold in the U.S. In determining what is considered “materially different,” 19 C.F.R. § 133.2(e) provides the following non-exclusive considerations: “(1) The specific composition of both the authorized and gray market product(s) (including chemical composition); (2) Formulation, product construction, structure, or composite product components, of both the authorized and gray market product; (3) Performance and/or operational characteristics of both the authorized and gray market product; (4) Differences resulting from legal or regulatory requirements, certification, etc.; [and] (5) Other distinguishing and explicitly defined factors that would likely result in consumer deception or confusion as proscribed under applicable law.” Also, PepsiCo, Inc. v. Pacific Produce, Ltd., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12085 (D. Nev. 2000) cites cases where failure to comply with FDA labeling regulations constituted a material difference.

idea-submission-attorney-private-chefs-trademark-infringement.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Private Chefs, Inc. is suing Food Network for stealing the recipe for the successful show “Private Chefs of Beverly Hills” in an idea submission, trademark infringement, and unfair competition case. Plaintiff is the owner of a USPTO registration for its design mark “PCI Private Chefs, Inc.”, which registered in 2006. Plaintiff alleges that in April of 2002 its president pitched a show idea to Food Network titled “Celebrity Dish”, which premise involved private chefs that worked for celebrities and wealthy individuals explaining recipes on air along with the celebrities and individuals.

Although Food Network declined Plaintiff’s concept, it’s alleged that in April 2010 Defendants began broadcasting “Private Chefs of Beverly Hills.” Plaintiff alleges that the “concept of the Show is close to if not exactly the same as ‘Celebrity Dish.'” The complaint continues, “[t]he Show also blatantly infringes on Plaintiff’s federally registered trademark ‘Private Chefs’ and this infringement has caused substantial consumer confusion, particularly in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s principal office is in Beverly Hills.” The case is Private Chefs, Inc. v. Food Network, Inc. et al., CV10-6159 CBM (C.D. Cal. 2010).

patent-attorney-design-trademark-bottle-gt-beverages-coca-cola.jpgSanta Ana, CA – GT Beverage Company sued The Coca Cola Company seeking Court judgment that its sports-themed shaped bottles did not infringe Coke’s trademark and design patent. Details blogged here. Coke filed counterclaims for trademark infringement and GT moved to dismiss them based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prevents a party from assuming a contrary position after that party “assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 756 (2001).

Coke obtained its USPTO trademark registration for a sphere bottle design via a global settlement of several legal proceedings (two in Belgium, one in The Netherlands, one in Spain, and two in the U.S.) with a third-party, O-Company N.V. In those cases, Coke asserted arguments of invalidity, non-infringement, and fair use in response to O-Company’s allegations. Based on Coke’s prior litigation stance, GT filed the motion to dismiss on the grounds that judicial estoppel precludes Coke from asserting its trademark infringement claims against GT.

The Supreme Court outlined three factors to consider when applying judicial estoppel: (1) whether a party’s current position is clearly inconsistent with its previous position; (2) whether the court accepted the party’s previous position, such that there is the perception that either the first or second court was misled; and (3) whether the party would gain an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party by asserting its inconsistent position. New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750-51.

trademark-attorney-hair-care-beauty-salon-oil-conditioner.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Moroccanoil manufactures “salon only” hair care products under its Moroccanioil®, “M Moroccanoil Design” and “Vertical Moroccanoil M Design” trademarks, which are all registered with the USPTO. Through its distribution arrangements Moroccanoil restricts the sale of its products to professional salons and licensed cosmetologists.

Defendant Beauty Encounter is accused of selling counterfeit Moroccanoil products through the www.beautyencounter.com and www.perfumeshop.com websites. Plaintiffs allege that they conducted chemical testing of Defendant’s products and determined that they had “distinctly different chemical and physical properties that do not match genuine Moroccanoil Oil Treatment.” Further, the complaint states that because Defendants cannot legitimately obtain genuine products from authorized distributors, “Defendants encourage Moroccanoil distributors and salons to cheat Plaintiffs by encouraging the distributors to order more Moroccanoil Products than the distributor or any salon needs. The excess Moroccanoil Products are then sold, directly or indirectly, to Defendants.” Thus, in addition to the trademark related claims, Plaintiffs assert interference with contractual relations and prospective advantage claims. The case is Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Beauty Encounter, Inc., CV10-5696 SVW (C.D. Cal. 2010).

trademark-attorney-nutritional-supplement-arthri-7.jpgSanta Ana, CA – Nutrivita is a dietary supplement distributor, including the Arthro-7 nutraceutical supplement which is advertised as alleviating joint pain. The Arthro-7 trademark registered with the USPTO on October 24, 2000.

Plaintiff alleges that in July of 2010 it began receiving inquiries from customers and retailers regarding the relationship between an “Arthri 7.1” product and Plaintiff’s Arthro-7 product. Nutrivita discovered that “Arthri 7.1” was being marketed and distributed by M V Cosmetic. Nutrivita alleges that “Arthri 7.1 is clearly an attempt to imitate the Arthro-7 trademark by altering the ‘o’ to an ‘i’, and changing ‘7’ to ‘7.1’.” In addition to the trademark infringement claim, Nutrivita asserts causes of action for unfair competition under the Lanham Act and the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, false description under the Lanham Act, and common law injury to business reputation. The case is Nutrivita Laboratories, Inc. v. M V Cosmetic et al., SACV 10-1142 JVS (C.D. Cal. 2010).