Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Following up on my post here, on Feb. 22, the Western District denied clothier Derek Andrew, Inc.’s motion asking the court to reconsider its partial denial of Dererk Andrew’s motion for preliminary injunction against fitness drink maker Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. STL readers may recall that Judge James Robart imposed a preliminary injunction enjoining Vital from using the word REDLINE by itself on clothes advertising its drinks, but did not enjoin Vital from using REDLINE in connection with the words, “The ultimate energy rush.” The injunction stemmed from Derek Andrew’s RED LINE trademark for clothing.

In response to Derek Andrew’s motion, the court found:

“Plaintiff argues that because the parties’ earlier briefing did not focus on the added slogan ‘The ultimate energy rush,’ Plaintiff did not adequately address the likelihood of confusion between RED LINE and ‘REDLINE, The ultimate energy rush.’ The court is not persuaded that Plaintiff’s failure to address this issue during briefing is a sufficient basis for the court to reconsider its prior order. Whether adding the slogan would alleviate consumer confusion was discussed at length during the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion. The court declines to further clarify its order on preliminary injunction regarding the font size of the slogan. The court is satisfied that its order enjoining Defendant from using ‘the REDLINE trademark, by itself, on any form of clothing and related products, such as t-shirts, shirts, plants, tops, tank tops, sweatshirts, sweat pants, hats, caps, shoes, and slippers,’ sufficiently informs Defendant of the type of clothing it may not distribute.

“Because Plaintiff has not shown a manifest error in the prior ruling, or facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the attention of the court earlier, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”

The case cite is Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 07-1364 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2008) (Robart, J.).