Articles Posted in Trademark Litigation

|

Trademark-attorney-spearmint-rhino-chiappa-gun-firearms.jpgSpearmint Rhino provides adult entertainment services, namely, it owns a large number of strip joints. In its sanitized complaint, however, “Rhino’s principal business is the development and licensing of its trademarks and the maintenance of control of the quality of goods and services offered in connection with Rhino’s marks.” As a side note, Rhino probably receives numerous applications for the position of quality control supervisor, but I digress.

Rhino owns several federally registered trademarks for its Rhino Outline logo, here, here, and here, that were filed on February 3, 2006. Thus, Rhino contends that its “registrations give it and its authorized licensees priority throughout the United States over any use in commerce of the Rhino Outline marks that had not commenced by February 3, 2006.”

Although the registrations cover goods and services in the adult entertainment industry, e.g. cabarets and “panties, g-strings, brassieres and corsets for semi-nude and erotic dancers,” Rhino sued Chiappa Firearms for allegedly using a confusingly similar Rhino design on its handguns: “Chiappa’s use of the Rhino Outline marks is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive because, among other reasons, consumers are likely to believe that there is an affiliation, connection, or association between” Rhino and Chiappa. Seriously? Maybe I’m a bit daft, but will consumers really confuse panties and guns?

Continue reading ›

|

Los Angeles, CA – Following the trend of fashion designers filing trade dress infringement lawsuits to protect designs not covered by copyright law, Jeffrey Campbell is suing Forever 21 for allegedly copying six shoe designs. Like Givenchy v. BCBG and Marc Jacobs v. Christian Audigier before it, Jeffrey Campbell is forced to use trade dress law to protect its designs because copyright law views fashion products, for example pursues and shoes, as useful articles that cannot be copyrighted. Unlike UGG, however, many fashion designers are unaware that fashion designs can be protected through design patents, which must be filed within one year of the design’s public disclosure. Without a design patent, Jeffrey Campbell must now attempt the tougher climb of proving trade dress infringement.

fashion-trade-dress-design-patent-jeffrey-campbell-forever-21.jpg

Jeffrey Campbell claims that its shoe designs “have become the footwear brand to know in the United States” over the last ten years and that customers, based on extensive marketing and advertising, recognize the shoe designs as Jeffrey Campbell’s trade dress. Plaintiff contends that Forever 21, “having a business model that . . . focuses on selling knockoffs or cheaper copies of products designed by higher-end fashion companies,” has intentionally copied the Cast Sandal, 99 Boot, Splendid Sandal, City Wrap Boot, Alicia Fur Boot, and Swansong Sandal. Jeffrey Campbell also asserts that Forever 21’s intentional copying violates federal and state unfair competition laws. The amount of monetary damages are currently unknown to Plaintiff, but it is also seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Forever 21’s future sales of the shoe designs.

The case is Jeffrey Campbell LLC v. Forever 21, Inc., CV11-04619 SJO (C.D. Cal. 2011).

|

trademark-parody-defense-dc-shoes-dg-kush-marijuana-lawyer.jpgSanta Ana, CA – Apparel and footwear manufacturer DC Shoes, Inc. owns several USPTO registered trademarks for DC Shoes logos and DCSHOECOUSA. DC Shoes contends that through its widespread use and advertisements of its products, the marks have become famous. Owning trademarks, however, doesn’t mean you should always sue purported infringers that have a valid parody defense that can possibly invite public backlash.

DC Shoes accuses IQ 185 of operating an online store – www.notforpot.com – that sells marijuana-related apparel and accessories, including T-shirts and hats bearing allegedly infringing trademarks. The accused logos, pictured here, “include the interlocking letters ‘O’ and ‘G’ and a [marijuana] leaf, and ‘OGKUSHUSA’.” (Definition of kush, here.) Plaintiff claims that it sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant regarding the allegedly infringing products, but Defendant ignored DC Shoes’ demand. So DC thought it would be a good idea to file a lawsuit for trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition to attract more attention to Defendant’s sale of products that are protected by the First Amendment and the parody defense.

Two recent cases illustrate that a parody defense can be successfully used and sometimes provide the defendants with more positive publicity than the plaintiff imagined. In Louis Vuitton v. Haute Diggity Dog the appellate court sided with a parody pet product maker that used clever names such as Chewy Vuiton, Bark Jacobs, Sniffany & Co., and Dog Perignon. In another David v. Goliath battle, The North Face unwisely sued a high school kid for selling garments under the witty South Butt trademark. Not content with harassing a kid with a trademark lawsuit, The North Face wanted further bad publicity by overzealously attacking him and his father during depositions. In the end, however, the South Butt case settled and the kid was allowed to continue selling his T-shirts, butt but not without providing an amusing response to the complaint.

Continue reading ›

|

idea-submission-attorney-implied-in-fact-contract-copyright-ea-sports-gillette-voss-knotts.jpgSan Diego, CA – Ron Voss is suing Gillette and EA Sports for copyright infringement and unfair competition, but judging from the facts of the case, he should have asserted an idea submission or an implied in fact contract claim. People mistakenly believe that a copyright registration protects the “idea” contained therein, instead of the particular expression. In fact, §102 of the Copyright Act specifically states that copyright protection does not extend to any “idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”

Voss alleges that he wrote and copyrighted a treatment entitled “Cyber Sports Championship Challenge,” which concept involves televising video game tournaments that pit gamers against celebrities and famous sports stars as contestants. Voss contends that co-defendant Jerry Knotts “misappropriated [the copyrighted work] and delivered it to EA. Afterward, EA and other defendants infringed Mr. Voss’ copyright by creating and distributing on commercial television (via the Spike Channel) and the World Wide Web “Gillette®-EA Sports™ Present Champions of Gaming powered by Xbox 360 LIVE” (the “program”).” The complaint, however, fails to specify how the expression of the copyrighted work was copied, separate and apart from the alleged “misappropriation” of the general idea. Plaintiff’s §17200 unfair competition claim is based on the copyright infringement facts and is preempted. 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 9th Circuit has yet to rule after the en banc rehearing of the “Ghost Hunters” case, Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc. The three-judge panel affirmed the district court’s order that Montz’s implied in fact contract claim was preempted by the Copyright Act. Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 606 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2010) (non-citable). The Court sua sponte ordered an en banc rehearing of the case and withdrew the three-judge panel’s published opinion. Based on the en banc panel’s questioning, I – as a non-clairvoyant – predict a reversal of the district court’s ruling and a finding that Montz’s idea submission claim is not preempted by the Copyright Act, in line with Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.2004) and Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal.2d 715, 299 P.2d 257 (1956). Watch the video of the Ninth Circuit’s en banc rehearing:

Continue reading ›

|

copyright-bratz-mattel-trade-secret-jury-verdict-lose-win.pngSanta Ana, CA — The jury in the Mattel v. MGA battle over the Bratz dolls determined that MGA did not infringe any copyrights and did not steal the idea or concept from Mattel. Instead, the jury has awarded at least $88.5 million to MGA for Mattel’s misappropriation of MGA’s trade secrets. The verdict form is available here.

This second round is in stark contrast to the first trial where the jury found for Mattel, which was overturned on appeal. I wouldn’t be going out on a limb by predicting that Mattel will appeal the verdict, after it’s post trial motions to set it aside, of course.

The case is Bryant v. Mattel, SACV 04-09049 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

|

fitness-dvd-copyright-trademark-attorney-ebay-zumba.jpgLos Angeles, CA – Zumba Fitness has filed several lawsuits accusing eBay sellers of counterfeiting its fitness DVDs and infringing its trademarks and copyrights. Zumba® Fitness is a Latin-inspired dance-fitness program that combines international music with dance steps to create an aerobic exercise regimen. Plaintiff alleges that over 10 million people take weekly Zumba classes worldwide. Plaintiff owns numerous copyright registrations and USPTO trademark registrations for Zumba related products and services.

Plaintiff alleges that in its ongoing investigation of counterfeit sales of Zumba products, its private investigator purchased an allegedly counterfeit “Zumba 4 DVD Box Set” from the Defendants. “The inspection of the purchased item confirmed that the item Defendants sold to the investigator was in fact a counterfeit and an unauthorized Zumba 4 DVD Box Set.” Plaintiff also asserts claims for unfair competition, trademark dilution, and unjust enrichment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A314kZAOCdw

Continue reading ›

|

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).

|

design-patent-trademark-copyright-apple-headset-eforcity-infringement.jpgLos Angeles, CA – eForCity Corporation has sued Apple, Inc. seeking the Court’s declaration that its sales of various earphones do not infringe Apple’s Patent Nos. D589,491, D469,753, D596,616, and D515,070. The lawsuit was filed after Apple’s attorneys sent a cease and desist letter accusing eForcity of also infringing Apple’s copyrights by using iPad images allegedly copied from Apple’s website. Further, the letter accused eForCity of infringing Apple’s iPad, iPhone, iPod and Mac trademarks in product descriptions with the ® or ™ symbols and without attribution to Apple. The case is eForCity Corp, et al. v. Apple, Inc., CV11-00808 SVW (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).