|

A Redondo Beach, CA restaurant was sued for copyright infringement by copyright attorneys for several recording companies for publicly playing music at the restaurant without a license from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. The complaint lists five songs which received copyright registrations by their individual authors with the U.S. Copyright Office, and the rights are owned by the record companies. The complaint alleges that on one night, presumably when their investigator was at Paulie’s Upper Deck Sports Grill, the five musical compositions covered by copyrights were publicly performed “for the entertainment and amusement of the patrons attending said premises, and defendants threaten to continue such infringing performances.”

The complaint alleges that plaintiff warned the defendant that a copyright license was needed in order to publicly perform the music at the restaurant. Because the defendant allegedly refused to pay for the license, the defendant’s copyright infringement was intentional and willful. 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 registered song. Plaintiffs also request 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: Far Out Music v. Fratelli Brothers, Inc., CV08-01975 GPS (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) allows the statutory damages to be raised to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be knowingly conducted. 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 period of up to 3 years. Because of the varying affiliations between record companies and the licensing society, a license from each of the following licensing societies must be obtained to cover the music owned by the various recording companies:

Continue reading ›

|

Hollywood, CA – Trademark attorneys file trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and Lanham Act 43(a) unfair competition lawsuit, on behalf of Quiksilver, in Los Angeles Federal District Court, against Walmart, alleging infringement of Quiksilver’s USPTO registered trademarks. Quicksilver has filed a family of “Roxy” trademark applications and received registration certificates from the USPTO. Plaintiff also claims that it has spent substantial sums in advertising its products bearing the Roxy trademarks such that the trademarks have become famous in the minds of consumers. The complaint alleges that Quiksilver’s investigator surveyed Wal-Mart stores and discovered sweatshirts bearing counterfeit trademarks. Also, Plaintiff alleges that Wal-Mart is not authorized to sell products bearing the Roxy trademark. The case is titled Quiksilver, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., CV08-01791 DSF (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Patent attorneys file patent infringement, trademark infringement and Lanham Act 43(a) unfair competition lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal District Court on behalf of Nobel Biocare USA, LLC, to protect dentistry patents and trademarks covering dental implant products. Nobel provides dentistry products, services, and training in the field of implant dentistry, including dental implants, abutments, individualized dental prosthetics, and surgical kits. Nobel is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 5,795,160 and U.S. Patent No. D443,361. Nobel is also the owner of several USPTO registered trademarks which are used on its dental implant products and services.

Nobel-Dental-Patent.jpgThe complaint alleges that defendant “Blue Sky first began using the Nobel, Nobel Biocare, Replace, Nobelreplace, and Nobelguide marks in connection with the sale and promotion of its [dental] goods in February of 200, long after [Plaintiff] Nobel had commenced its substantial use and promotion of its” Nobel trademarks and long after it had registered the trademarks with the USPTO. The complaint alleges infringement of the ‘160 patent and the ‘361 patent. It also alleges infringement of registered trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1114. False designation of origin is asserted under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and dilution of trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). California causes of action are asserted for unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and common law trademark infringement. The case is titled Nobel Biocare USA, LLC v. Blue Sky Bio, LLC, CV08-01407 ODW (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: Nobel’s case provides an example of the use of various forms of intellectual property to provide a wide range of protection for its dental implant products. The design patents protect the aesthetic design of the product, utility patents protect the functional aspect of the product, and trademarks inform consumers about the source of the products.

|

Glendale, CA – Trademark attorneys file trademark infringement and Lanham Act 43(a) unfair competition lawsuit to protect Tycoon Jewelry, Inc.’s jewelry related trademarks in Los Angeles Federal District Court, alleging infringement of its USPTO registered trademarks for jewelry products. Tycoon Jewelry alleges that it has used the Tycoon and Tycoon ct trademarks, either alone or in combination with other words or symbols, with a wide range of products, including jewelry, for approximately twenty years.

The complaint alleges that Defendant Tycoon International, Inc. has used the infringing Tycoon mark both in its company name and for the sale of jewelry. The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Trademark infringement 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114; (2) False designation of origin and trade dress infringement under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) Unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ; and, (4) California common law unfair competition. The case is titled Tycoon Jewelry, Inc. v. Tycoon International, Inc., CV08-01982 CAS (C.D. California).

|

Riverside, CA – Trademark attorneys file trademark infringement and Lanham Act 43(a) unfair competition lawsuit, on behalf of Hansen Beverage Company, in Los Angeles Federal District Court, alleging infringement of its USPTO registered Monster energy drinks trademarks. Hansen launched Monster energy drinks in 2002 and, since then, has expanded to a variety of products which are marketed under the Monster family of trademarks. The Monster energy drink containers prominently display the Monster trademarks and trade dress. Hansen has spent millions of dollars in promoting the drinks under the Monster trademarks and has retail sales of over one billion dollars.

Monster-trademark.jpgDefendants also sell an energy product under the trademark of Monster Energy Shot. Hansen alleges that “without permission or authority from Hansen, Defendants have infringed Hansen’s MONSTER Marks in interstate commerce in connection with Defendants’ making, using, promoting, advertising, selling, and/or offering to sell the MONSTER ENERGY SHOT drink.” The complaint also states that, by choosing a similar color scheme on their containers, “Defendants have infringed Hansen’s MONSTER trade dress in interstate commerce in connection with Defendants’ making, using, promoting, advertising, selling, and/or offering to sell its MONSTER ENERGY SHOT energy drink.” The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Trademark infringement 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114; (2) Trademark dilution under the Lanham Act section 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (3) False designation of origin and trade dress infringement under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (4) California trademark dilution under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14330; (5) Unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500; (6) Common law trademark infringement; (7) Common law trade dress infringement; and, (8) California common law unfair competiton. The case is titled Hansen Beverage Company v. N2G Distributing, Inc., et al., EDCV08-0357 VAP (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA –Lawyers file patent infringement lawsuit, on behalf of food processor Tuna Processors, Inc., in Los Angeles Federal District Court, alleging infringement of USPTO issued Patent No. 5,484,619. The patent is titled Method For Curing Fish And Meat By Extra-Low Temperature Smoking. The patent claims a method of smoking raw fish and meat to sterilize and prvent decomposition and discoloration without losing their freshness. The complaint alleges that Hilo Fish Company, Inc., located in Hawaii, “imports and/or sells, or induces or contributes to others importing and/or selling, tuna which has been treated by extra-low temperature smoking which infringes, induces infringement of, and/or contributes to the infringement of the ‘619 patent.” Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hilo Fish has labeled its products as produced under the ‘619 patent. In addition to preliminary and permanent injunctions, the suit seeks monetary damages. Also, it alleges that the infringement has been willful and asserts that this is an exceptional case, entitling the plaintiff to treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The case is titled Tuna Processors, Inc. v. Hilo Fish Company, Inc., CV08-01236 R (C.D. California).

|

Pasadena, CA – Trademark attorneys file trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and Lanham Act 43(a) unfair competition lawsuit, on behalf of Neiman Marcus, in Los Angeles Federal District Court, alleging infringement of Neiman Marcus’ USPTO registered trademarks. Since its initial retail business in 1907, “Neiman Marcus has grown into a nationwide chain of retail stores and a nationwide mail order catalog retail business. Neiman Marcus operates thirty-six stores located in premier retail locations in major markets nationwide.” Neiman Marcus’ registered trademarks, through substantial use and marketing over the years, have become famous. Its trademark also serves as its website URL at www.neimanmarcus.com.

neiman-marcus-trademark-logo.jpgThe defendant is alleged to have “registered and/or used over four million (4,000,000) domain names.” Plaintiffs allege that the defendant has used an automated process to register domain names that are confusingly similar to the Neiman Marcus registered trademarks. The domain names are numerous misspellings of the trademarks. The complaint alleges that the defendant’s “typo-squatting” tactics are also used to cybersquat on other famous trademarks. The defendant allegedly provides pop-up and pop-under advertisements to be displayed on the confusingly similar domain names and defendant makes income from the pay-per-click advertisements. The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Cybersquatting under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); (2) Trademark infringement 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114; (3) Unfair competition and false designation of origin under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (4) Trademark dilution under the Lanham Act section 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (4) Trademark infringement under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14320; and, (5) Unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500. The case is titled The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Ultra RPM, Inc., CV08-01723 MMM (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys file trademark infringement and Lanham Act 43(a) unfair competition lawsuit, on behalf of Dell, in Los Angeles Federal District Court, alleging infringement of Dell’s USPTO registered trademarks against resellers. Dell has been selling personal computers since 1984 and has registered its Dell trademark and variations thereof in more than 180 countries worldwide, and has more than thirty United States federal trademark registrations containing the term Dell. Since its inception, Dell has primarily used a direct sales model to sell directly to consumers rather than through retail outlets, first through telephone and also the Internet. Dell, however, permits a limited number of authorized resellers, which have to abide by Dell’s reseller terms and conditions.

Dell-trademark-logo.jpgDell alleges that the four individual defendants enrolled in Dell’s reseller program and became bound by the resale terms, where “defendants agreed (1) to refrain from unauthorized use of Dell’s trademarks; (2) not to resell Dell product without first adding value through the addition of hardware, software, or services; (3) not to resell Dell product on auction-type websites [such as eBay]; and (4) to resell their Dell product to small and medium businesses.” The complaint alleges that the defendants have used aliases to purchase Dell products and sold them through unauthorized trade channels and on eBay in violation of the reseller agreement and have made misrepresentations and misused Dell’s trademarks. For example, the defendants have allegedly sold products on eBay as “new” when they were, in fact, refurbished. The complaint asserts that “Defendants have, through their scheme of deliberate misrepresentation and concealment, purchased millions of dollars worth of Dell products from Dell and resold such product in breach of their contractual obligations to Dell and in violation of Dell’s trademark rights.” The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Trademark counterfeiting and infringement 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114; (2) Unfair competition and false advertising under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) Trademark dilution under the Lanham Act section 43, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (4) Unfair competition and false advertising under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500; (5) Unjust enrichment; (6) Breach of contract; (7) Fraud; and, (8) Civil conspiracy. The case is titled Dell, Inc. v. Kizun, et al., CV08-01821 JSL (C.D. California)

|

Los Angeles, CA – Costa Mesa trademark attorneys filed breach of sponsorship agreement on behalf of NASCAR driver’s team Robby Gordon Motorsports and seek declaratory relief regarding the defendant’s trademark rights. Because of Robby Gordon’s successful NASCAR racing career, companies are willing to pay significant amounts of money for sponsorship and licensing opportunities. The complaint alleges that in 2007, Gordon and Camping World entered into a sponsorship agreement by which Camping World sponsored Robby Gordon Motorsports in connection with several NASCAR races.

robby-gordon-trademark.jpgFor the 2008 racing season, Camping World and Robby Gordon Motorsports entered into another sponsorship agreement where “Camping World agreed to provide two motor coaches and pay [Gordon] $200,000 per race for primary car sponsorship for four NASCAR Sprint Cup races.” The complaint alleges that Camping world has partially performed its obligations by providing one of the two motor coaches, but is now refusing to provide the second motor coach. The complaint continues that Camping World sought to renege the sponsorship agreement by demanding that Robby Gordon “ensure that Camping World’s colors and logos do not appear on [Gordon’s] car…and Gordon does not have [Camping World’s] permission to bear [Camping World’s] trademarks.” Also, Camping World has allegedly failed to pay at least $250,000 due under the sponsorship agreement. Robby Gordon Motorsports requests monetary damages for the alleged breach of contract and the Court’s determination of the rights of the parties with respect to the trademarks. The case is titled Team Gordon, Inc. v. Camping World, Inc., CV08-01731 MMM (C.D. California).

|

copyright-spiderman-pic.jpgBurbank, CA – Copyright attorney files copyright infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal District Court alleging infringement of Spiderman cartoon copyrights. BVS Entertainment, Inc. owns exclusive copyrights to episodes of the animated Spiderman television series from the 1960s. BVS alleges that Defendant Trans World had purported to license copyrights and provide copies of Spiderman to various entities around the country. In February, Trans World signed a settlement agreement acknowledging BVS’s copyrights, disclaiming its own, admitting infringement, and promising to cease and desist. However, as the complaint continues, Trans World began marketing rights to Spiderman again in violation of BVS’s copyrights and the settlement agreement.

In the settlement agreement, Trans World admitted to infringing BVS’s copyrights and was required to identify all entities to which Trans World had licensed the Spiderman animated series. The complaint, however, alleges that Trans World failed to identify all of the entities which BVS later discovered. BVS claims that “Trans World failed to abide by the terms of the Settlement Agreement and continued to infringe [the copyrights] even after Trans World signed the Settlement Agreement on Februaruy 1, 2008. Specifically, Trans World sent an email on February 3, 2008, to Corus Entertainment, Inc., offering ten episodes of ‘Spiderman’ to which BVS owns the exclusive copyrights, as Trans World acknowledged in the Settlement Agreement.” BVS seeks monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction against Trans World and asks the Court to order the “seizure of unauthorized copies of ‘Spiderman’ in Trans World’s possession custody and control, including means of production as provided by 17 U.S.C. section 503.”

I like the original Spiderman theme song:

Continue reading ›