Seattle Trademark Lawyer

According to plaintiff’s complaint, defendant Gary Loomis used to own plaintiff G. Loomis, Inc., which makes fishing equipment and sporting goods.

The complaint alleges Mr. Loomis sold his interest in the company to plaintiff in May 1997 and continued to work as plaintiff’s employee until May 2008. Plaintiff alleged it acquired the G. LOOMIS trademark in the purchase.

Plaintiff alleged it brought a prior suit against Mr. Loomis alleging that he began working with plaintiff’s competitors to design and sell a line of fishing-related equipment under various trademarks incorporating his name, including GARY LOOMIS SPINNERBAITS and GARY LOOMIS LURES.

Plaintiff alleged the parties settled their dispute in September 2009. Part of the settlement, plaintiff claimed, was that Mr. Loomis would not offer goods or services in connection with any name or mark that is confusingly similar to plaintiff’s G. LOOMIS mark.

Plaintiff filed suit against Mr. Loomis again in December 2009, alleging that Mr. Loomis breached the parties’ settlement agreement in November 2009 when he launched the “Gary Loomis Approved Rod Builder Program” with defendant North Folk Composites LLC, one of plaintiff’s competitors. Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Loomis and North Folk also began using a logo with the words GARY LOOMIS that appeared to be Mr. Loomis’ signature. Plaintiff claimed their doing so further amounted to trademark infringement.

In January, Mr. Loomis and North Folk answered plaintiff’s complaint and asserted a counterclaim for breach of contract.

Two weeks later, the parties settled.

On March 31, Western District Judge Benjamin Settle entered the parties’ Stipulated Dismissal dismissing their claims against each other without prejudice and without awarding attorney’s fees or costs to any party.

Sorry to say, but STL isn’t privy to the terms of the parties’ settlement.

The case cite is G. Loomis, Inc. v. Gary Loomis, No. 09-5787 (W.D. Wash.).