Articles Posted in Trademark Litigation

|

domain-name-registration-trademark-cancel-toms-famous-family.gifSanta Ana, CA – This case should serve as a warning to all domain name owners: TIMELY RENEW YOUR DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION AND DON’T LET IT LAPSE! The Valaskantjis family trust, owner of the Tom’s Famous Family Restaurants since 1968, unfortunately allowed its domain name registration to lapse without timely renewal. The domain name, www.tomsfamousfamilyrestaurants.com, was then allegedly registered by defendant Katz Global Media, LLC.

Katz is accused of establishing a website using Tom’s trademarks and copyrights to publish false reports regarding Tom’s use of illegal alien labor to operate its restaurants. The website also claims that plaintiffs don’t pay the required taxes or workers compensation insurance. Further, Defendant is accused of soliciting the public to report plaintiffs to the IRS and Customs and Immigration Enforcement. On top of the problems created by the new website, Plaintiffs have also allowed their trademark registration to lapse: see here.

It appears that the defendant has researched First Amendment and fair use defenses. Courts have previously found for plaintiffs in bad faith registrations of lapsed domain names where the subsequent registrant attempted to sell the domain back to the prior registrant. See BroadBridge Media, L.L.C. v. Hypercd.com, 106 F. Supp. 2d 505, 511-512 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). In this case, however, it appears that a sophisticated defendant is using the domain name for what appears to be protected speech. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds.

Continue reading ›

|

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).

|

wine-trademark-attorney-bottle-label-san-antonio-banfi.jpgLos Angeles, CA – San Antonio Winery filed a trademark and trade dress declaratory judgment action against Banfi Products. San Antonio’s Stella Rosa Imperiale Brachetto d’Acqui wine is made from Brachetto grapes that are sourced from the D.O.C.G. region of Brachetto d’Acqui. San Antonio has registered its Stella Rosa design trademark with the USPTO. Banfi’s Rosa Regale Brachetto d’Acqui wine is also made from Brachetto grapes sourced from the same region.

Banfi’s cease and desist letter to San Antonio allegedly contended that Banfi had protectable rights in the “combination of the label design and placement, the color scheme, the bottle shape and color, and the wording on Banfi’s product is distinctive or has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning such that the designated combination of elements constitutes protectable trade dress and that the designated trade dress is not functional.”

San Antonio disagrees and seeks the Court’s ruling that its wine bottle “does not infringing any valid, enforceable trademark or trade dress rights of Banfi under any provisions of the Lanham Act or constitute unfair competition under any state unfair competition laws.” The case is San Antonio Winery, Inc. v. Banfi Products Corporation, CV10-9245 MMM (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
 

|

Los Angeles, CA – Givenchy, the luxury merchandise manufacturer, seems to be jumping on the trade dress bandwagon (see here and here) to prevent copying of its purse design. Instead of protecting its purse design with a design patent, Givenchy claims that its Nightingale Trade Dress “includes without limitation a removable strap, two double seemed handles, a flat bottom and decorative double stitched horizontal and vertical stripes on the exterior that visually separate the bag into four distinct quadrants.” Givenchy is going to have to show that the consuming public recognizes the trade dress as identifying the source of the purse. Givenchy claims that it has earned in excess of fifty (50) million dollars in revenue from the sale of the Nightingale handbags and that the public recognizes the trade dress.

givenchy-bcbg-max-azria-handbags-trade-dress-copying-infringement.jpg

BCBG is accused of trying to profit from Givenchy’s goodwill by selling “its knock-off ‘Rembrandt’ and other handbags that deliberately copy, line-by-line and stitch-by-stitch distinctive, non-functional elements of Givenchy’s Nightingale Trade Dress.” In addition to monetary damages, Givenchy seeks an injunction prohibiting further sales of BCBG’s handbags. The case is Givenchy S.A. v. BCBG Max Azria Group, Inc. CV10-8394 (C.D. Cal. 2010).

|

trademark-attorney-facebook-lamebook.jpgFacebook, if you’ve been living on a deserted island, is eponymous with online social networking. Lamebook is a parody website recently created by Jonathan Standefer and Matthew Genitempo, two graphic designers from Austin, Texas. Lamebook highlights “the funny, absurd, and often ‘lame’ content that gets posted on the Facebook website” to provide fodder for its users’ social commentary. Lamebook does not provide social networking services, but allows “people to poke fun at and comment on the kind of pictures, comments, and messages that get posted” on Facebook. After receiving cease and desist letters from Facebook, Lamebook’s claim that it was a clear parody did not dissuade Facebook. Lamebook is now asking the Court to declare that it does not infringe or dilute the Facebook trademark and that its parody website is protected free speech under the First Amendment. The case is Lamebook, LLC, v. Facebook, Inc., 10-cv-00833 (W.D. Tex. 2010).

|

trademark-attorney-drink-beverage-energy-killer-buzz-monster.jpgLos Angeles, CA – In a buzz worthy turn of events, Hansen Beverage Company filed a declaratory judgment action against PBEV, seeking a ruling that its use of the term “buzz” and “Killer-B” on its Monster Energy® drinks does not infringe PBEV’s “Killer Buzz” trademark.

Hansen alleges that in July 2009, it launched a new line of soft drinks under the mark Nitrous Monster Energy, where one product bears the mark Killer-B as a flavor designation. A year later, Hansen received a cease-and-desist letter alleging trademark infringement. Hansen’s complaint maintains that its Killer-B mark is not confusingly similar to the Killer Buzz mark, including the dissimilarity in packaging on which the marks appear. The case is Hansen Beverage Company v. PBEV, LLC, CV10-07594 CAS (C.D. Cal. 2010).

KILLER BUZZ PHOTO CREDIT & PRODUCT REVIEW FROM EDJUNKIE.COM

|

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).