Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Continuing my similar analysis from last year (see posts here and here), I’ve looked at cases that were opened and cases that were closed in the Western District of Washington in 2007. To get a more accurate picture of 2007 activity, I analyzed cases filed from 2005 to 2007 that the federal courts’ PACER database flagged as involving primarily “trademark” issues. The statistics are interesting.

Thirty-eight trademark cases were filed in the Western District in 2007, compared with 64 cases in 2006, and 166 in 2005. 2005 was an unusual year because Microsoft filed 117 infringement lawsuits against John Doe defendants who allegedly were engaged in “phishing,” i.e., using Microsoft trademarks to trick Hotmail customers into providing personal information. Without the Microsoft suits, plaintiffs filed 49 suits in 2005. Even without those cases, new trademark filings in 2007 were the lowest in the Western District in at least three years.

There was no clear “winner” last year for being most litigious. Four plaintiffs filed two trademark lawsuits each: HomeTask Handyman Services Inc. (v. Cooper, and v. and Szewczyk (post here)); Microsoft Corp. (v. Kovyrin (posts here and here), and v. Does 1-301); Topline Corp. (v. Flurt Footwear (post here), and v. 4273371 Canada Inc (post here)); and Derek Andrew Inc. (v. Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc., and v. Chrome Hearts Inc.).

Microsoft’s trademark lawsuits decreased to two cases, down from three in 2006 and 119 in 2005. Washington’s other two companies that made Interbrand’s 2007 list of Best Global Brands (see post here), Amazon.com and Starbucks, did not file any trademark lawsuits here last year.

For me, the biggest surprise was the number of Western District lawsuits involving footwear. These include Topline Corp. v. Flurt Footwear (post here), Brooks Sports Inc. v. Payless Shoesource Inc. (posts here and here) and Diadora SpA v. Payless Shoesource Inc. (post here). I did not realize that footwear was such a big industry in Seattle.

Besides looking at new filings, I analyzed how courts disposed of trademark cases in 2007. The Western District closed six cases that were filed in 2005; 27 cases that were filed in 2006; and 18 cases that were filed in 2007. I did not analyze cases that were filed before 2005.

Looking only at closed cases, trademark cases filed in 2007 remained active on average for 116 days. Trademark cases filed in 2006 remained active on average for 201 days. In 2005, the number was 214 days. The 2005 number was skewed downward by the large number of cases Microsoft brought and dismissed in groups after 134 and 187 days. The 2007 number was skewed downward even further since the only cases that were both filed and closed in 2007 were necessarily short-lived. Considering these factors, it looks like the lifespan of trademark cases here has remained about the same in the last three years.

I’m a little surprised that the average trademark case spans less than one year. I wonder how that compares with other kinds of lawsuits or trademark cases in other districts. My guess is that parties (and to a lesser extent, the courts) dispose of trademark cases quicker than other types of cases. This probably is due to defendants who either do not participate in the case and have a default judgment taken against them or concede their wrongdoing early on and agree to a permanent injunction. I really can’t say whether these figures are consistent with trademark cases in other judicial districts.

Tomorrow’s post will focus on how cases were disposed of in 2007. How many settled? How many went to trial? Which judges granted preliminary injunctions? Which judges granted summary judgment? Tune in tomorrow to find out.