|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for Red Bull filed a lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125), and trademark dilution. The complaint asserts that since Red Bull’s introduction in 1996, over four billion units have been sold in the United States and over one billion dollars have been spent on advertising, marketing and promoting the Red Bull energy drink. Red Bull has obtained trademark registrations at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for the its word marks in addition to the trade dress in its can designs.

trademark-attorney-in-los-angeles-fair-use-foosh.jpgThe Defendants manufacture and sell chocolate mint chews bearing the “Buzz Bites” trademark and mints bearing the “Foosh Energy Mints” trademark. Red Bull is not concerned about the word marks used by Defendants, but alleges that the Defendants’ use of Red Bull’s trademarks and trade dress in Defendants’ advertising and on Defendants’ website and vending machines “is likely to cause confusion before and during the time of purchase of defendants’ products because purchasers, prospective purchasers . . . are likely to be drawn to defendants’ products because they mistakenly attribute [defendants’] products to Red Bull.” Red Bull sent a cease and desist letter to Defendants, but Defendants have allegedly refused to cease the use of the Red Bull trademarks and trade dress. The case is titled Red Bull GMBH v. Vroom Foods, Inc. and Mad Dog Energy Products, CV08-04960 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: A competitor can assert the nominative fair use defense to protect its ability to use a trademark to refer to a trademark owner or its goods or services for purposes of reporting, commentary, criticism, and parody, as well as for comparative advertising. To qualify for the nominative fair use defense, the following three requirements must be met: (1) the trademark owner, product, or service must not be readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) the defendant must use only as much of the mark as is necessary to identify the trademark owner, product, or service; and (3) the defendant must do nothing that would suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. From the facts asserted in the complaint, the Defendants will probably interject a comparative advertising fair use defense, because they are comparing the caffeine content of their product and that of Red Bull. It appears that the first and third elements of the test are met, but the defense will probably turn on whether the second element of the test is satisfied – i.e. did Defendants use more of Red Bull’s trademarks/trade dress than was necessary to make the comparison?

|

Los Angeles, CA – Corporacion’s patent attorneys filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Central District of California (Los Angeles Division), accusing Charming Shoppes and Lane Bryant of patent infringement. U.S. Patent No. 6,543,062 entitled “Pants Garment with Body Profile Enhancement Features” was duly issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office on April 8, 2003. After the ‘062 patent’s issuance, it was assigned to plaintiff Corporacion.

garment-patent-attorney-clothing-pants-los-angeles.jpgThe ‘062 patent covers a pants garment with elastic components built therein to allow for an improved anatomical fit: “the pants garment is provided with a unique cut and assembly that lifts and accentuates the wearer’s buttocks. In another preferred aspect of the invention, the pants garment additionally reduces the wearer’s stomach.” Defendants sell jeans and pants under the “Secret Slimmer” trademark, which are accused of infringing the ‘062 patent: “[t]he Secret Slimmer products are not staple articles of commerce, and Defendants know or should know that these products have no substantial non-infringing uses. Defendants engage in these acts despite their actual notice and knowledge of the ‘062 patent.” In addition to monetary damages, which Plaintiff asks the Court to treble based on the alleged intentional infringement by Defendants, the Plaintiff also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions. The case is titled Corporacion 1466, C.A. v. Charming Shoppes, Inc. et al., CV 08-04693 MMM (Central District of California 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for dietary supplement company Iwin Labs filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, in the Central District Of California (Los Angeles Division), accusing rival nutritional company of copying its website design. The complaint asserts that in June of 2008, Iwin Labs developed and created an acai berry dietary supplement and created a website that promotes and sells the supplement. Based upon Iwin’s success, the Defendants allegedly “proceeded to copy Iwin Labs’ website and product labels, word for word, color for color, image for image (though at times making uninspired attempts to be ‘just a little’ different, but still most definitely similar enough to steal customers from Iwin Labs and wreak havoc on Iwin Labs’ customer relations).” The following are screen shots of the parties’ websites as represented in the complaint:

copyright-attorney-central-district-of-california-dietary.jpg

The complaint continues, “what is worse, Defendants not only copied and otherwise misappropriated Iwin Labs’ intellectual property, they made an active and concerted effort to fool the public by using the exact same online marketers and advertising agents that Iwin Labs had previously used, thereby greatly increasing the probability that repeat visitors looking for the Iwin Labs website would end up on Defendants’ nearly identical web pages.” Plaintiff requests statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). Plaintiff also requests that the court order the defendants to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Iwin Labs, LLC v. Crush, LLC, CV08-04695 MMM (Central District of California 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) provides an increase in the statutory damages to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be intentional. However, the Plaintiff’s state causes of action for statutory and common law unfair competition appear to be preempted by the Copyright Act and should be dismissed.

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for Louis Vuitton filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125), counterfeiting, and copyright infringement complaint at the Federal District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles Division) to protect its purse designs from being copied. The luxury goods manufacturer began selling its luggage in France in 1854 and in the United States in 1893. In 1896, Louis Vuitton created the LV monogram with three motifs (shown below) and registered it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1932. Louis Vuitton has additional design/logo trademarks that are also registered with the USPTO. Further, Louis Vuitton owns certain copyright registrations in the U.S. Copyright Office covering its Multicolor Monogram design.

purse-design-copyright-trademark-protection-louis.jpgDefendants are alleged to have counterfeited and infringed on Louis Vuitton’s trademarks and copyrighted works by selling unauthorized goods, such as purses and handbags. Louis Vuitton alleges that “the activities of Defendants complained of herein constitute willful and intentional counterfeiting and infringement of the Louis Vuitton Trademarks and Copyrighted Work; are in total disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights and were commenced and have continued in spite of Defendants’ knowledge that the use of the Louis Vuitton Trademarks and Copyrighted Work, or copies or imitations thereof, was and is in direct contravention of Plaintiff’s rights.” The case is titled Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mido Trading, Inc., et al., CV 08-04405 DDP (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: The defendants’ website, midotrading.com, has been taken offline at the time of this post. That does not appear to be a good omen for defendants. I previously posted (Click Here) about the Louis Vuitton and “Chewie Vuiton” parody case, where the defendant’s parodical use of the LV Monogram was found to not infringe on Louis Vuitton’s trademarks or copyrights.

|

UPDATE 11/20/2008: The Court dismissed the patent infringement case with prejudice because the parties settled. Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Los Angeles, CA – Patent attorneys for Patent Category Corporation (“PCC”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, accusing Easton Sports of infringing three PCC utility patents. PCC is the assignee of the inventions covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,357,510, entitled “Collapsible Support Frames,” U.S. Patent No. 6,604,537, entitled “Collapsible Structures,” and U.S. Patent No. 6,758,003, entitled “Collapsible Structures Supported On A Pole.” The patents generally relate to flexible structures that are foldable and comprise support nets, which, in one preferred embodiment, may be used in practicing sports.

los-angeles-patent-attorney-sports-easton.jpgThe complaint alleges that Easton Sport’s five foot pop-up multi net (pictured herein) and seven foot catch net infringe on the patents-at-issue. “PCC has been damaged by Easton’s infringement of each of the patents-in-suit in an amount to be determined at trial. Furthermore, by these acts, Easton has irreparably injured PCC and such injury will continue unless Easton is enjoined by this Court.” The case is titled Patent Category Corporation v. Easton Sports, Inc., CV 08-04617 DDP (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright attorneys for several plaintiffs, including Sony and Gwen Stefani, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles accusing Alhambra based Havana House Cigars & Lounge of publicly performing copyrighted music without a license from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. The complaint alleges that on January 11, 2008, presumably when their investigator was at the Lounge, and on several occasions thereafter, the five copyrighted musical compositions were publicly played and performed. Plaintiffs assert that the Lounge will continue to publicly play and perform these songs unless it is enjoined by the Court.

los-angeles-copyright-attorney-alhambra-havana.jpgThe complaint alleges that ASCAP, on behalf of the copyright owners, contacted the defendant and informed him that a copyright license was needed in order to publicly perform the copyrighted music at the Lounge. The defendant, however, has allegedly not agreed to pay for the license and has continued to play the songs at issue. Plaintiffs request statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), of not more than $30,000.00 and not less than $750.00 for each copyrighted song. Plaintiffs also request that the court order the defendant to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Sony/ATV Harmony v. Alfred Campano, CV08-03947 PA (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) provides an increase in the statutory damages to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be intentional. Also, if a restaurant or public establishment unreasonably believed that it was exempt from licensing requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 110(5), the copyright plaintiff, in addition to other damages under section 504, will be entitled to two times the license fee which it should have paid for the preceding three-year period. Because of the varying affiliations between record companies and the licensing societies, a license from each of the following licensing societies must be obtained to cover the music owned by the various recording companies:

Continue reading ›

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for E! Entertainment Television filed a trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125) complaint at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, over entertainment/celebrity news blogger’s use of the enewsbuzz.com domain name. The complaint provides a summary of E! Entertainment’s beginnings in 1990 as the only 24-hour network with programming dedicated to the world of entertainment and celebrity news. It currently “is the world’s largest producer and distributor of entertainment news and lifestyle-related programming.” E! alleges that “E! News” and “E! News Weekend” are its most popular television programs and both trademarks have been registered with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

los-angeles-trademark-attorney-e-entertainment.jpgE! alleges that long after it commenced use of its famous E! Marks and E! NEWS Marks, Defendants began business under the ENewsBuzz trademark using the enewsbuzz.com domain name to provide similar services, “Defendants use the ENEWSBUZZ mark, trade name, and domain names in connection with providing gossip, news and images of Hollywood celebrities.” Defendants are alleged to have adopted the confusingly similar mark in order to benefit from the goodwill established by E!: “significantly, Defendants’ ENEWSBUZZ mark is depicted on its website with the letter “E” offset in bold red – the same color that E! Entertainment has been using in connection with the “E!” portion of its E! Marks and E! NEWS Marks for many years.” The lawsuit was filed after the Defendants refused to cease using the subject trademark and domain name in response to E!’s correspondence. In addition to preliminary and permanent injunctions, E! also seeks monetary damages. The case is titled E! Entertainment Television, Inc. v. Louie De Filippis et al., CV 08-04355 ODW (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – A patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Xyratex’s patent attorneys at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, accusing Teradyne of infringing on its disk drive patent. Xyratex is the owner by assignment of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,826,046, entitled “Disk Drive Unit.” The patent relates to asynchronous disk drive testing field, where by controlling the temperature of each disk drive in a testing apparatus that houses multiple disk drives enables each disk drive to be tested independently.

los-angeles-patent-attorney-disk-drive-xyratex.jpgThe complaint alleges that Teradyne has subsequently designed, manufactured, and offered for sale asynchronous disk drive test equipment that controls the temperature of individual disk drives in a testing apparatus that houses multiple disk drives. Xyratex states that it has not been able to study Defendant’s product and compare it to the ‘046 patent, in order to comply with it pre-suit investigation, because the Defendant’s product and/or specifications are not publicly available. Representatives of both parties allegedly met and Xyratex asked the defendant to provide an analysis and explanation of why Teradyne’s product does not infringe the ‘046 patent. Teradyne has allegedly refused to provide such explanation, resulting in the filing of the instant lawsuit. In addition to monetary damages, Xyratex also seeks both preliminary and permanent injunctions against further alleged infringement. The case is titled Xyratex Technology, Inc. v. Teradyne, Inc., CV 08-04545 SJO (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for Project E filed a trademark infringement and Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125) complaint at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles over Genetic Denim’s use of a double helix design stitching on jeans’ pockets. Plaintiff asserts that it is the owner of the “XX” trademark, which comprises two adjacent Xs stitched into garments, and first used the trademark in 2004. Although, the Plaintiff does not sell jeans/denim, it claims that the mark has been used on polo shirts and sweaters and that the goods are substantially related.

los-angeles-trademark-attorney-genetic-projec-e.jpgGenetic Denim uses a DNA double helix stitched into the jeans’ back-pockets and – playing on the genetic theme –an “XY” stitching is used on the front of jeans for men and an “XX” stitching is used on the front of jeans for women. The complaint alleges that Genetic Denim’s “use of the trademark or a substantially similar trademark is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source or origin of defendant’s goods in that the public and others are likely to believe that defendant’s goods are manufactured, distributed or sold by, or sponsored by, or approved by, or licensed by, or affiliated with, or in some other way legitimately connected to plaintiff. Such public confusion has and will continue to cause irreparable harm to plaintiff.” In addition to preliminary and permanent injunctions, Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages. The case is titled Project E, Inc. v. Genetic Denim, LLC, CV 08-04016 R (C.D. Cal. 2008).

|

copyright-registration-attorney-application-los-angeles.jpgLos Angeles, CA – The United States Copyright Office, as of July 1, 2008, began accepting electronic filings of copyright applications for registration. The Copyright Office provided tips for navigating the new online copyright registration system, named electronic Copyright Office (eCO). A frequently asked question (FAQ) page is provided on the Copyright Office website to address the most common concerns. Also, an eCO tutorial is provided to familiarize users with the new online registration format. Currently, the following basic copyright claims can be registered through the eCO: literary works, visual arts works, performing arts works, sound recordings, motion pictures, and single serial issues.

The advantages of e-filing of copyright applications include:

  • Lower filing fee of $35 for a basic copyright claim (for online filings only)
Continue reading ›