Seattle Trademark Lawyer

STL readers may recall that Exxon Mobil Corp. sued X On Wireless Corp. in the Western District for trademark infringement last year. This year, the parties settled.

On Feb. 24, the parties filed a Consent Judgment memorializing X On Wireless’ agreement not to resume any use of its now-abandoned X ON mark. The judgment permanently enjoins X On from using any mark, name, word, term, or domain name that incorporates “X ON.”

So why did X On Wireless adopt X ON as its trademark in the first place? To trade on Exxon’s goodwill is my guess. Why else would it adopt a sound-alike to Exxon’s famous, fanciful mark?

The case cite is Exxon Mobil Corp. v. X On Wireless Corp., No. 08-5652 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 24, 2009).

On Feb. 20, the Western District denied defendant Hipcricket, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a supplemental counterclaim against plaintiff Cricket Communications, Inc. Hipcricket sought to assert that Cricket’s alleged refusal to connect Hipcricket’s “short codes” to Cricket’s telecommunications network violated the nondiscrimination policy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and constituted an illegal restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The parties’ discovery deadline in this trademark and unfair competition suit was Jan. 5. STL’s summary of Cricket’s claims is available here. Trial is scheduled for May 4.

Western District Judge Marsha Pechman rejected Hipcricket’s argument that no additional discovery would be required to determine the proposed counterclaim. The court found: “Reopening discovery would disrupt the pretrial and trial schedule, increase costs to the parties, and unfairly prejudice Cricket.

“Moreover, ‘[w]hile leave to permit supplemental pleading is favored, it cannot be used to introduce a separate, distinct, and new cause of action.’ Hipcricket’s proposed supplemental counterclaim involves new and distinct antitrust and telecommunications claims that are related to the underlying trademark claims ‘only in a very broad sense.’ These claims will require legal briefing beyond the scope of the current litigation, and allowing them ‘would inject an additional layer of complexity and delay into an already complex action.’ There are no ‘technical obstacles’ preventing Hipcricket from bringing a new, separate action on these claims.”

The case cite is Cricket Communications, Inc. v. Hipcricket, Inc., 2009 WL 426618, No. 08-908 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 20, 2009) (Pechman, J.).

 The offices of Graham & Dunn, on Pier 70 in lovely Puget Sound:
Site of the upcoming “Meet the Bloggers V”!! 

Doing my best to carry on the tradition started by my betters, STL is proud to host “Meet the Bloggers V” during this year’s International Trademark Association annual meeting — which not coincidentally is being held right here in Seattle.

Date: Monday, May 18

Time: 6-9 p.m.

Place: Graham & Dunn, Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 300, Seattle

Eats/drinks: Traditional “Meet the Bloggers” munchies, beer, and wine

All trademark bloggers — and especially our beloved trademark blog readers — are welcome! RSVPs appreciated. 

Mark your calendars!! Map and more intel to follow in May….

 Smouha Fabrics’ Lucky Buddha (left)
and Laughing Buddha’s beer bottles 

On Feb. 24, Seattle craft microbrewery Laughing Buddha Brewing Co. announced it has agreed to resolve a trademark dispute with Smouha Fabrics, owner of the Lucky Drink Company of Australia, by changing its name. Beginning April 1, the company will be known as the Trade Route Brewing Company.

Lucky Drink reportedly sent a cease-and-desist letter to Laughing Buddha in May 2008, alleging that Laughing Buddha’s name and trademark were confusingly similar to Lucky Drink’s LUCKY BUDDHA registered trademark and Buddha-bottle trade dress.

“We didn’t feel that we were infringing on their trademark,” Laughing Buddha’s co-owner Chris Castillo said in a written statement. “Smouha is a big corporation and we couldn’t afford to go through the litigation process.”

The soon-to-be-former Laughing Buddha began selling its Asian-influenced beer in the Seattle area in late 2007.

Thanks to Venkat Balasubramani of Seattle’s Spam Notes blog for the tip. He’ll be enjoying some sushi on me tomorrow.

Seattle’s own Gary Locke may become Commerce secretary, the AP writes today.

That would put Washington’s former two-term Democratic governor in charge of the Patent and Trademark Office. Or at least in charge of the folks who are in charge. 

It would be nice to have an attorney serving in that capacity. Gov. Locke is a longtime member of the Washington State bar. After leaving public service in 2005, he has been partner at a Seattle-based firm focusing on China, energy, and government relations.

Seattle is already making quite an imprint on the Obama White House. In the last few weeks, Pres. Obama tapped King County Executive Ron Sims to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper to be drug czar.

Congratulations, Gov. Locke! Let’s hope for a speedy confirmation.

Photo credit: The Seattle Times