Seattle Trademark Lawyer

I can’t remember seeing this before.

A motion to the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize a trademark dispute that’s spread over a number of districts.

That’s what plaintiffs Moroccanoil, Inc., and Moroccanoil Israel, Ltd., requested of their six cases — with five situated in the Central District of California and one in the District of New Jersey.

The Panel suggested that the parties cooperate, but declined plaintiffs’ motion to centralize the cases. There just wasn’t enough in common between the cases to justify plaintiffs’ request.

“On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we are not persuaded that centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions do involve similar allegations of infringement of one or more of Moroccanoil’s trademarks, resulting from the sale or supply of purportedly counterfeit Moroccanoil Oil Treatment in 3.4 ounce bottles, which were sold at various retail outlets across the country. Despite the existence of some factual overlap among the present actions, highlighted by the alleged similarity of the counterfeit products and plaintiffs’ theory of a common source of counterfeit products, the proponents of centralization have failed to convince us that any shared factual questions in these actions are sufficiently complex or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer.”

The case cite is In re Moroccanoil Trademark Litig., __ F.Supp.2d __, 2011 WL 1399464, No. MDL 2224 (U.S. Jud. Pa. Mult. Lit) (April 8, 2011).