Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Plaintiff Chevron U.S.A., Inc. alleged defendant In N Out Minimart on Broadway, Inc., willfully infringed its trademark. In N Out failed to answer, so the Western District ordered it to be in default.

The first time around, the court denied Chevron’s motion for entry of default judgement with an award of fees and costs because Chevron did not set forth the basis for the award. The second time around, Chevron sought fees as an “exceptional” case under the Lanham Act, which the court granted based on Chevron’s allegations and In N Out’s failure to participate in the case.

The court found: “While the term ‘exceptional’ is not defined in the statute, attorneys’ fees are available in infringement cases where the acts of infringement can be characterized as malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, or willful.’ In this case, the complaint explicitly alleged that defendant’s conduct was willful. As the Derek Andrew, Inc. [v. Poof Apparel Corp., 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008)] court explained, once default has been entered, the allegations in the complaint, except with respect to the amount of damages, are taken as true. Accordingly, the relevant allegations in the complaint are taken as true, including the allegation that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff’s trademark. That allegation and the entry of default sufficiently establish plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act.”

The case cite is Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. In N Out Minimart on Broadway, Inc., No. 09-18, 2009 WL 1608458 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2009) (Lasnik, J.).

I wouldn’t call it a safari, but I did have the good fortune to spend the weekend in the great city of Vancouver, BC. While there, I came across this tasty example of a generic trademark: CUPCAKES brand cupcakes. I later learned the shop’s name actually is CUPCAKES BY HEATHER & LORI. However, the notion of CUPCAKES-branded cupcakes was about as close as I came to trademark law this weekend so it’ll have to suffice for today’s post.

The White House June 18 announced its nominee for Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the PTO: David J. Kappos. Mr. Kappos is Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property Law for IBM Corp. I like his profile — he has been responsible for protecting and licensing all aspects of IBM’s intellectual property, including managing its trademark portfolio. He also has overseen IBM’s IP litigation. Mr. Kappos got his law degree from Berkeley in 1990. If confirmed, he’s got a lot of work ahead of him. I wish him the best.

Feb. 2007 patent-oriented interview here; PTO press release here.

Photo credit: PTO

Plaintiff Kona USA, Inc., makes KONA-branded mountain bikes. Defendant DBM Nutrition makes KONA ENDURANCE-branded nutritional supplements.

Apples and oranges, right?

Not according to Kona USA — at least when DBM began sponsoring a bicycle racing team.

It filed a complaint in the Western District on June 15 alleging willful trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.

DBM has not yet filed an answer.

The case cite is Kona USA, Inc. v. DBM Nutrition, No. 09-822 (W.D. Wash.). 

“To call it ‘leather’ is outright deception, outright fraud.”

Those are the words Seattle-based Design Resources, Inc., alleges Dr. Nicholas Cory said in Furniture Today about Design Resources’ NEXTLEATHER bonded leather products, which Design Resources claims amounts to false advertising, defamation, and product disparagement. Design Resources filed a complaint alleging as much in the Western District in May.

The complaint clams Design Resources brought its product to Dr. Cory and his laboratory, Leather Research Laboratory, for research needed to ensure labels on its NEXTLEATHER products accurately disclosed the information required by the Federal Trade Commission. Design Resources claims Dr. Cory concluded it could call its product “bonded leather” — before changing his tune when talking with Furniture Today.

Design Resources is in the business of importing bonded leather, bycast leather, and finished leather hides, which it cuts and sews to patterns for furniture manufacturers.

Defendants have appeared in the lawsuit but have not yet filed an answer.

The case cite is Design Resources, Inc. v. Leather Industries of America, No. 09-611 (W.D. Wash.).