|

Los Angeles, CA – Patent attorneys filed a patent infringement lawsuit, in Los Angeles Federal District Court, on behalf of Bella Bella, Inc. against numerous cosmetic products manufacturers for allegedly infringing a patent covering a cosmetic composition used in micro-dermabrasion procedures. Bella is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,290,976 titled “Facial skin dermabrasion cleansing and conditioning composition.” The complaint alleges that each of the laundry list of defendants “has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘976 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling … microdermabrasion products containing alumina.” Bella alleges that some of the defendants were aware of the ‘976 patents because it had been cited as prior art in the defendants’ own patent application. Also, as to some of the other defendants, Bella alleges that they were aware of the ‘976 patent because Bella had contacted them to offer a license to practice the invention. Bella seeks a permanent injunction in addition to monetary damages for patent infringement. The case is titled Bella Bella, Inc. v. Neutrogena Corporation, et al., CV08-01270 GAF (C.D. California).

Here’s the list of the “et al.” defendants, if you’re interested: Johnson & Johnson, DermAnew, Inc., Sharper Image, Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc., Physicians Formula Cosmetics, Inc., American International Industries, Guthy-Renker Corporation, Stearn’s Products, Inc., Derma E, L’Oreal S.A., L’Oreal USA, Inc., Laboratories Garnier Paris, Garnier LLC, Lancome Perfumes et Beaute, Avon Products, Inc., Mary Kay, Inc., Graf Skin Care, Inc., Homedics-U.S.A., Inc., Borghese, Inc., Photomedex, Inc., Procyte Corporation, Kao Brands, Beauticontrol, Inc., ABBE Laboratories, Inc., Guinot, Lachman Imports, Inc., Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., Prescriptives, Inc., Peter Thomas Roth, Inc., Platinum Skin Care, and, LAST BUT NOT LEAST, Cosmesis Skincare, Inc.

|

Los Angeles, CA – Activision, the maker of the popular video game “Guitar Hero,” filed a declaratory judgment complaint asking the Court to rule that the video game does not infringe on Gibson Guitar’s patent. Gibson is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,990,405 (“the ‘405 Patent”), titled “System and Method For Generating and Controlling a Simulated Musical Experience.” In January of 2008, patent attorneys for Gibson informed Activision that the Guitar Hero video-game infringed the ‘405 Patent and offered a license. Apparently Activision was already licensing trademarks owned by Gibson and the parties had a continuing business relationship for several years.

guitar-hero-patent.jpgLicensing negotiations hit a sour note and Activision filed the instant complaint asking the District Court in Los Angeles to rule that the ‘405 Patent is invalid and/or not infringed by the Guitar Hero video-game. Activision also alleges that because Gibson has been aware of the Guitar Hero video-game for many years and has encouraged its sale, that Gibson should be estopped from asserting the patent. Also, because Gibson has encouraged the sale of the games, Activision argues that it has an implied license under the ‘405 patent. Further, Activision alleges that because Gibson has been fully aware of the Guitar Hero video-game for several years, it should not be able to enforce the patent under the doctrine of laches. The case is titled Activision Publishing, Inc. v. Gibson Guitar Corporation, CV08-01653 PSG (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Trademark and franchise law attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Dairy Queen® franchisor against a Culver City franchisee for allegedly breaching the franchising agreement and for trademark infringement. Dairy Queen’s trademarks have been registered with the USPTO and since the 1940’s have been franchised or licensed for use on ice cream, dairy products, and other consumables. In this case, Defendant Lee had executed two franchising agreements and licensed the rights to use Dairy Queen’s numerous trademarks. The franchising agreements require the franchisee to maintain the store at a specific standard, follow operating procedures, pay a monthly license fee, pay a lease administration fee, and pay a sales promotion program fee.

dairyqueen.jpgThe complaint continues that the franchisee must also agree to allow Dairy Queen to audit the financial records to determine whether the proper amount of the licensing fee is being paid. If any of these franchising terms were not met and cured, it would constitute a default and the franchise rights would be terminated. After termination, the franchisee would agree to immediately cease the use and display of all of Dairy Queen’s trademarks. The terminated franchisee would also need to pay a termination fee to compensate Dairy Queen for the early termination of the franchising agreement. The complaint alleges that defendant Lee failed to comply with the upkeep standards set by Dairy Queen for its franchisee’s location and was given 60 days to correct the deficiencies, which went uncorrected. The complaint also alleges that, after an audit, it was determined that Lee underpaid Dairy Queen by $16,911.84, which Lee failed to pay after receiving notice. The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Trademark infringement of USPTO registered trademarks; (2) False designation of origin under the Lanham Act 43(a) (15 U.S.C. 1125(a)); (3) Federal trademark dilution of famous trademarks under the Lanham Act 43(c) (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)); (4) Trademark counterfeiting; and (5) Breach of contract. The case is titled American Dairy Queen Corporation and DQF, Inc., v. Myung Taek Lee, CV08-01505 AHM (C.D. California).

|

Pasadena, CA – Patent attorney files patent infringement lawsuit on behalf of Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels, Inc. over USPTO issued design patents covering custom wheels against Custom Wheels Unlimited, Inc. in Los Angeles District Court. Mobile has designed and distributed custom wheels for automobiles since 1996, and its products are sold to automobile dealers and retail distributors of custom wheels. Its Condo wheel design was issued U.S. Design Patent No. 497,583. Its Big Homie wheel design was issued U.S. Design Patent No. 514,052. The complaint alleges patent infringement because Custom Wheels Unlimited “manufactured, imported, offered for sale and/or sold vehicle wheels which are copies of the patented Condo and Big Homie designs. The complaint seeks monetary damages and a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Custom Wheels Unlimited from infringing on the patents. The case is titled Mobile Hi-Tech Wheels, v. Custom Wheels Unlimited, Inc., CV08-01599 MMM (C.D. California).
mobile-1.jpg

|

Santa Ana, CA – Trademark attorneys, Irvine based, file trademark infringement lawsuit in Santa Ana District Court for infringement of Newport Dental trademarks, with additional causes of action for California law trademark infringement (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14320), unfair competition (§ 17200), and common laws passing off and unfair competition. Plaintiff Bright Now! Dental is a network of over 300 dentist offices which have used the trademark Newport Dental since 1985. Plaintiff has numerous trademark applications pending before the USPTO which use the words Newport and Dental in some form. Plaintiff alleges that a defendant dentist, Farshad Saghatchi, is using the infringing trademark of Newport Dental Group and offering dental services.

Bright-now.gifPlaintiff alleges that “Defendant adopted and began using the Newport Dental Group mark with actual or constructive knowledge of [Plaintiff’s] prior use and application to register the Newport Dental Marks, and with the intent to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the Newport Dental Marks. Defendant’s use of the Newport Dental Group trademark, the complaint alleges, “is likely to lead to lead consumers to erroneously believe that Defendant’s services originate from or are otherwise sponsored by, approved by, or affiliated with the owner of the Newport Dental” trademarks. In addition to preliminary and permanent injunctions, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and attorneys’ fees as a result of the Defendant’s alleged trademark infringement. The case is titled Bright Now! Dental, Inc., v. Newport Dental Group, SACV08-00223 JVS (C.D. California).

|

Santa Ana, CA – Watson Laboratories, Inc., through its biotechnology patent attorneys, filed suit in Santa Ana District Court seeking declaratory relief of patent non-infringement and patent invalidity against Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The pharmaceutical companies own U.S. Patent No. 7,320,969, which they listed “with the Food And Drug Administration (FDA) in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (“Orange Book”), as a patent that could reasonably be asserted against anyone marketing or seeking to market a generic version of [their] SEASONIQUE® female contraceptive product.” Watson “previously filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic form of SEASONIQUE®.” After the patent was filed with the FDA, Watson “filed an amendment to its ANDA containing a certification pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) and that the ‘969 patent is unenforceable, invalid and/or not infringed by Watson’s ANDA product.”

watson-patent-pic.gifWatson has beaten the patent owners to the punch and filed a declaratory judgment action because it believes that it will be sued for patent infringement. Watson seeks a declaration from the Court that the patent is “is invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the drub product described in Watson’s ANDA.” The case is titled Watson Laboratories, Inc., v. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., SACV08-0243 JVS (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – A garment industry copyright lawsuit was instituted by copyright attorneys for Major Textile Imports, Inc. against Jones Apparel Group, Inc in Los Angeles District Court. In November 2006, Major Textile designed a fabric design or pattern and applied for copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office, which copyright was registered in December of 2006. In fact, Major Textile produced several fabric designs and applied to copyright them with the Copyright Office around the same time frame. Major Textile asserts that it “has always printed its copyrighted designs on good quality fabric in attractive color combinations and sold fabric bearing the copyrighted designs to garment manufacturers and others.”

Jones-Apparel-pic.jpgPlaintiff asserts that “since at least as early as or prior to September 2007, Jones Apparel infringed said copyright by advertising, offering for sale, and selling…garments imprinted with designs and/or patterns which is (sic.) closely copied from and substantially similar to Major Textile’s copyrighted designs, patterns and/or fabrics.” In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against defendant’s sale of the allegedly infringing garments made with the Plaintiff’s designs, patterns, and/or fabrics. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of its costs and attorneys’ fees. The case is titled Major Textile Imports, Inc. v. Jones Apparel Group, Inc., CV08-01448 CAS (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Glendale, California trademark attorney files, on behalf of Nike, a trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition, Lanham Act dilution of famous trademark, section 17200 unfair competition, and dilution under California law complaint in Los Angeles Federal District Court. Nike is combating the willful sale of unlicensed and counterfeit products that bear Nike’s numerous trademarks registered with the USPTO. Nike alleges that it sells over 4.5 billion dollars of merchandise a year all of which bear Nike’s famous trademarks.

nike_swoosh.jpgNike alleges that two individual defendants manufacture, distribute, and or sell counterfeit footwear bearing the Nike trademarks through several websites. Nike alleges that the two individual defendants are residents of Long Beach, California and base their counterfeiting operations there. Nike’s federal trademark infringement arises under Sections 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125. Nike’s Lanham Act – unfair competition claim arises under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and (d) for false designation of origin and false descriptions and representations in interstate commerce. Nike’s dilution of famous marks arises under the Lanham Act section 43, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The case is titled Nike, Inc. v. Nyla Kauv, CV08-01404 ODW (C.D. California)

|

Los Angeles, CA – North Hollywood based Air Dimensional Design, Inc. instituted a patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition lawsuit against several competitors for allegedly infringing on its promotional and marketing inflatable toy figures. Plaintiff is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,186,857, which relates to an inflatable form, usually human, made from an ultra-light, thin fabric or sheet material that is sewn or otherwise formed into tubular sections that are connected together to form the full figure. The inflatable bendable figure is connected to an air blower that constantly blows air into the fabric. Holes in the head and arms of the figure and the dynamic air flow cause the figure to undulate like it’s dancing. Plaintiff has used the trademark “Fly Guy” on its promotional product and has registered it with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

air-dimensional.jpgPlaintiff alleges that several defendants are infringing its patent by making, selling, and using undulating figure products embodying the patented invention. Plaintiff also states that defendants are infringing on its “Fly Guy” trademark by using the confusingly similar “Fly Guys” trademark. In addition, Plaintiff contends that the defendants are using its “Fly Guy” trademark as a Google adword to redirect consumers to defendants’ websites. The complaint asserts causes of action for infringement; federal trademark infringement of registered trademark (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114-1117; Lanham Act § 32); federal unfair competition (false designation of origin and false description (Lanham Act 43(a) and 15 U.S.C. 1125); trademark infringement under California law; California unfair competition under section 17200; and trademark dilution. Plaintiff alleges that the infringement is willful and intentional and requests that the damages be trebled. The case is titled Air Dimensional, Inc., v. Action Sky Dancers, CV08-01121 GW (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – A trademark infringement and unfair competition complaint was filed in the Central District of California by Woodland Hills based trademark attorneys representing RVCA Platform, LLC. RVCA is in the garment industry and is engaged in the business of design, manufacture, distribution and sale of apparel. It has used a crest design trademark in connection with the sale of apparel products and garments. Its trademark is registered with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for use on an extensive list of apparel products, including T-shirts and other garments.

Nautica-garment-industry-trademark.jpgDefendant Nautica Apparel, Inc. is a manufacturer, distributor and retailer of apparel. The complaint alleges that Nautica adopted and used Plaintiff’s trademark on apparel, including T-Shirts, in interstate commerce. Plaintiff alleges that Nautica’s trademark infringement is not only obvious and willful, but that Nautica “has attempted to misappropriate all of the consumer recognition and goodwill Plaintiff has established in the trademark by intentionally confusing consumers by using [Plaintiff’s] trademark under the words Nautica Jeans Company.” Plaintiff continues that “even a cursory, preliminary trademark clearance search incorporating the design search codes for particular design elements incorporating Plaintiff’s trademark would have revealed” plaintiff’s registration. The complaint asserts causes of action for federal trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114-1117; Lanham Act § 32); federal unfair competition (false designation of origin and false description (Lanham Act 43(a) and 15 U.S.C. 1125); trademark infringement under California law; and California unfair competition under section 17200.