As discussed yesterday, the Western District of Washington disposed of fifty-one trademark cases in 2007. These consist of cases that PACER identified as being “trademark” matters that parties filed in 2005, 2006, and 2007, and that were listed as being closed in 2007. Here’s how they went down:
That puts us at fifty-five dispositions, four more than were filed. This is because cases with multiple defendants sometimes ended with more than one event (e.g., one defendant settled and was voluntarily dismissed, and the other defendant did not appear and lost by default judgment). I’d prefer a nice, neat number, but I guess it doesn’t work that way.
Judge Marsha Pechman was the busiest with motions for temporary restraining orders, granting one (Autodesk Inc. v. Open Design Alliance (post here)) and denying one (High-Rise Technology v. Amatuerindex.com). Judge Ricardo Martinez also denied one (Commscope Inc. of North America v. Electro Products Inc.).
Western District judges in 2007 were more likely to deny motions for preliminary injunction in trademark cases than grant them. Judges Thomas Zilly (Cascade Financial Corp. v. Issaquah Community Bank) (post here), Martinez (Rubber Stamp Management Inc. v. Kalmbach Publishing Co.), James Robart (CMSI Inc. v. Pacific Cycle Inc.), and Robert Lasnik (United Treasures Inc. v. Sarah’s Attic Inc.) each denied such motions. Judges Pechman (Varsity Gold Inc. v. Elite Fundraising LLC) and Franklin Burgess (Thermion Inc. v. Thermion Metalizing Systems Ltd.) granted one each in part and denied one in part. Judge Robart granted the only preliminary injunction outright (Jonathan Neil & Associates Inc. v. JNA Seattle Inc.) (post here). One plaintiff stipulated to a preliminary injunction (American Board of Anesthesiology Inc. v. Liao) (post here).
The Western District didn’t dispose of a single case on summary judgment. (I didn’t count Judge Ronald Leighton’s recent grant of summary judgment for the defendants in Ormsby v. Barrett (post here) because the case remains active while defendants pursue their counterclaims.) However, Judge Martinez granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment in Rubber Stamp Management Inc. v. Kalmbach Publishing Co. (post here). Judges Zilly (Crane v. CTX Mortgage Co. LLC) and Robart (Lahoti v. Vericheck Inc.) (post here) each granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for the defendant. Judge Kelley Arnold denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Mother LLC v. LL Bean Inc. (post here).
Plaintiffs did not fare well on summary judgment: Judge Zilly denied plaintiff’s motion in Crane v. CTX Mortgage Co. LLC and Judge Robart denied plaintiff’s motion in Lahoti v. Vericheck Inc.
Of the two cases that went to trial, the plaintiff won one (Lahoti v. Vericheck Inc.) and lost one by directed verdict (Mother LLC v. LL Bean Inc.). No case went to the jury.
The biggest judgment appears to be the $900,000 the plaintiff obtained by consent judgment in Commscope Inc. of North Carolina v. Electro Products Inc. The other notable judgment was the plaintiff’s default victory to the tune of $610,579 in Dali-USA Inc. v. Domains by Proxy Inc. Most of the other judgments were in the neighborhood of $100,000 or less.
That’s enough statistics for me…. Here’s to an interesting and productive trademark docket in 2008!