Posts Tagged: "trademark infringement"

A recent trademark infringement case between Stork Market Inc v. 1736735 Ontario Inc. (Hello Pink Lawn Cards Inc), 2017 FC 779 has resulted in a win for the plaintiff and retribution in the amount of $30,000.  The copyright and trademark case deals with competitors in the business of renting and installing lawn signs for special occasions such as birthdays, anniversaries, and graduations. The trademark infringement case is based on claimed infringement of Stork Market Inc. and its registered trademarks of two images of a stork holding a baby above its head and under a banner that states the sex of the baby

This latest victory for a foreign plaintiff asserting intellectual property claims is proof of yet another step down the road leading to a reformed, intellectual property friendly China, with China cracking down on infringers — as promised by Chinese President Xi Jinping… The Chinese IP court in Beijing reportedly ordered three domestic shoemakers to pay a total of 10 million yuan ($1.5 million USD) to New Balance for infringing upon the slanted ‘N’ logo utilized by New Balance on its branded shoes. That’s not a huge damages award in the grand scheme of trademark damages ordered around the world but reports indicate that the damages in this cases were the most ever handed out by a Chinese court to a foreign plaintiff for trademark infringement allegations.

Atari Interactive Inc. filed a lawsuit alleging trademark and copyright infringement claims against Swiss food and drink company Nestlé SA (VTX:NESN). The suit targets a worldwide and multi-platform advertising campaign produced by Nestlé for the company’s Kit Kat candy bars, which uses elements of Atari’s Breakout video game. The suit is filed in the Northern District of California. Atari’s suit alleges that Nestlé leveraged the look of Breakout for its Kit Kat ad campaign 40 years after Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created the game for Atari. “To be clear, this is not a case where a good faith dispute could exist between the rights holder and alleged infringer,” the complaint reads.

In mag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., Romag sued Fossil for patent and trademark infringement and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) after one batch of Fossil’s handbags appeared to have counterfeit magnetic snaps. The jury found Fossil liable for patent and trademark infringement and for violating the CUTPA. The Federal Circuit affirmed the patent and trademark infringement verdicts. After that appeal, Romag sought attorney’s fees under the Patent Act, Lanham Act, and the CUTPA. The district court awarded attorney’s fees under all but the Lanham Act… The Supreme Court’s “objectively unreasonable” standard for attorney’s fees set forth in Octane applies to infringement cases under the Lanham Act and the Patent Act. In attorney’s fee disputes, courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the conduct of both parties.

In order to keep operating under the “Pierogi Festival” name, the Edwardsville committee has filed a suit against the coordinators of the Whiting Pierogi Fest in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. A complaint filed by the Edwardsville Hometown Committee against the Whiting-Robertsdale Chamber of Commerce seeks a declaration that “there is no possibility of consumer confusion between the Edwardsville event and the suburban Chicago event.” The Edwardsville committee is also seeking relief for tortious interference. It alleges that the Whiting-Robertsdale chamber has willfully interfered in business relationships forged by the Edwardsville committee to finance the Edwardsville Pierogi Festival.

The Ninth Circuit clarified the requirements for pleading and establishing a trademark infringement claim under a reverse confusion theory in Marketquest Group v. BIC, Case No. 15-55755 (9th Cir. July 7, 2017). The court relieved plaintiffs from having to specifically plead reverse confusion if it is compatible with the theory of infringement alleged in the complaint, and supported a more malleable standard for proving intent in reverse confusion cases. The court also held that good faith is an element—not just a factor—of a fair use defense, and that the fair use defense may only be raised after a likelihood of confusion is established. Marketquest further reinforces courts’ reluctance to decide trademark cases on summary judgment, and makes it more difficult for defendants to dispose of reverse confusion claims through pretrial motions. 

At this year’s IDEA World, TRX’s booth is very close to Aktiv Solutions, a distributor of fitness equipment. The two are only separated by one booth in between them run by the mind-body fitness firm Merrithew. Among the products distributed by Aktiv include a functional training ecosystem created by Gym Rax, a developer of modular storage and suspension solutions for fitness facilities. And Gym Rax recently filed a lawsuit alleging that TRX is committing trademark infringement. On June 12th of this year, Gym Rax International filed a complaint for federal trademark infringement against Fitness Anywhere LLC, doing business as TRX, in the Central District of California.

Chicago-based chewing gum company Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company filed a trademark infringement suit against e-cigarette seller Chi-Town Vapers LLC of Bensenville, IL. The suit targets Chi-Town for marketing certain e-cigarette materials which bear a striking resemblance to chewing gum products manufactured by Wrigley. The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (N.D. Ill.).

Cincinnati, OH-based grocery retailer Kroger Company (NYSE:KR) recently filed a trademark infringement suit against German-based discount supermarket chain Lidl over a private food label. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (E.D. Va.), alleges both trademark and service mark infringement and is seeking to have a related U.S. trademark application filed by Lidl cancelled. The suit comes just weeks after Lidl opened its first locations in the United States.

Dunkin’ Donuts allegations center around a message displayed on windows at the Mike’s Coffee location: “North Now Runs On Mike’s”. Although Steve Copoulos, the owner of Mike’s Coffee, reportedly did not have Dunkin’ Donuts’ “America Runs On Dunkin’” slogan in mind when putting up the window display at Mike’s Coffee, a letter from Dunkin’ argued that the owner’s actions “are clearly designed to trade in on the goodwill and reputation associated with the America Runs on Dunkin’ trademark,” according to The Sun Chronicle.

Some have dubbed it the modern-day gold rush while skeptics warn of the hostile attitude of the current administration in Washington D.C. Whatever the view there is no denying that the marijuana legalization landscape is contentious and demands attention, including from trademark attorneys who will increasingly see their clients interested in cannabis related business activities, and consequently in obtaining cannabis trademarks.

Avery Labels worked hard to establish its brand among consumers as the premier retailer of label products, as well as providing software solutions through their design-and-print-online tool and one-stop premium printing service, “WePrint.” As a result, when consumers search online for label products, Avery is typically the top-of-mind brand, making Avery the envy of its competitors. A few of those competitors recently attempted to benefit from Avery’s category-leading position by using the Avery trademark on their digital marketing ads without Avery’s permission, which not only drove up Avery’s ad costs and cut into its results, but was a clear case of trademark infringement.

Eight in ten C-level executives believe trademark infringement of their marks is on the rise… Despite their feeling that trademark infringement is on the rise, 66% of organizations stated they had plans to launch new marks within the next year, and 80% said they would likely launch even greater numbers if the trademark clearance process were simpler… Clearance has always mattered, but it matters a lot in today’s rapidly evolving trademark ecosystem. Not only are brand owners increasingly focused on clearing brands across multiple channels in multiple regions, but as more and more marks are adopted and registered, the risk of infringement and dilution is also likely to increase. While protectability may be important from a legal standpoint, 45% of polled executives still indicated competitive positioning was most important to them when adopting a new mark. Another 41% indicated they placed value on whether a mark is “unique.” In the United States, protectability was cited by organizations as the third most important factor for a new mark – after competitiveness and uniqueness. Other mark attributes executives signaled as important included global relevance, versatility and timelessness.

There are several different forms of intellectual property rights available in the United Kingdom, each with its own formality, level of protection, and duration period. It is crucial that any individual who creates a product, or who believes that they would benefit through protecting their intellectual property ensures that they follow the correct procedure… Many individuals will incorrectly assert a claim for copyright infringement. However, copyright infringement is a niche protection right and is only afforded to ‘artistic output’. No formality is required to register this right in the United Kingdom, which is different than U.S. practice.

On the menu this week for Other Barks & Bites… Video game systems developed by Nintendo and Sony are targeted in a patent infringement suit filed in Delaware federal court. The infamous scan-to-email patent giving rise to the patent troll debate has finally been invalidated at the Federal Circuit. A multi-billion dollar copyright suits between two American tech giants gets new life from Oracle. California’s state legislature moves to create trademark protections for marijuana products at the state level, circumventing federal restrictions on such trademarks. And Zillow gets hit with a copyright infringement verdict.