Seattle Trademark Lawyer

The parties in Carey Licensing, Inc. v. Sandler have had a little trouble trying to book a Western District magistrate judge for a settlement conference in their trademark infringement and cybersquatting case. But as the Western District reminded them this week, magistrate judges don’t participate in settlement conferences — only parties do. The court’s minute order serves as a good reminder as to the difference between settlement conferences, mediations, and judicial settlement conferences. And, of course, to follow the local rules:

“The court has been notified that counsel for both parties in this action have attempted to contact one or more magistrate judges to schedule a settlement conference. In doing so, the parties have ignored the court’s previously issued scheduling orders, and have ignored the court’s local rules.

“The court’s most recent scheduling order requires the parties to complete a ‘Settlement Conference per CR 39.1(c)(2)’ no later than April 4, 2008 and to conduct a ‘Mediation per 39.1(c)(3)’ no later than July 1, 2008. As the applicable sections of the court’s local rules state, a settlement conference is a conference solely between the parties, and is a prerequisite to engaging in the mediation that the court requires. Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 39.1(c)(2). A ‘judicial settlement conference,’ by contrast ordinarily takes place only after a Rule 39.1 mediation.

“In this case, so far as the record reveals, the parties have neither engaged in the settlement conference required under Rule 39.1(c)(2) nor the mediation required by Rule 39.1(c)(1). Until they have satisfied those requirements, the parties shall not seek a judicial settlement conference. Once they have completed these steps, the parties may contact this court’s Deputy Clerk … to discuss the possibility of appointing a settlement judge.”

The case cite is Carey Licensing, Inc. v. Sandler, No. 05-1337 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2008) (Jones, J.).

Champagne sparkling wine only comes from the Champagne region of France, right? Until the Champagne region of France moves, that is. The Institut national de l’origine et de la qualite, which governs the Appellation d’Origine Controlee designation for Champagne, is set to expand the appellation’s boundaries, which currently spans 319 villages in north-eastern France. What wasn’t “true” Champagne will soon be the real McCoy.

In other words, vineyards that arbitrarily got the stamp of approval soon will be joined by new vineyards that also arbitrarily get the stamp of approval.

The reason behind the move? Increased demand for Champagne in Russia and China.

Of course, this is great news for neighboring viticulturalists. A French official was quoted as saying: “If your vines fall on the wrong side of the divide, they will be worth 5,000 euros a hectare. On the other side they will be worth one million euros.”

I’m not saying that any vintner should be able to call its sparkling white wine “Champagne.” But this move emphasizes that economics, not distinctiveness, influences (or even drives) what’s approved and what’s not. That would seem to undermine why geographic indications exist in the first place.

Last week, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts released its annual report on the “Judicial Business of the United States Courts.” There’s a lot of statistical information in there. Most is organized by judicial district, but some is broken down into both case area and judicial district. For instance, the report states 49 trademark cases were filed in the Western District in the year ending September 30, 2007. Sixty-three trademark cases were terminated in that time, and 29 were pending.

Those figures are a bit higher than my own analysis of Western District trademark cases (see here and here). My review of the federal courts’ PACER database in January showed that 28 trademark cases were filed in the Western District in the calendar year 2007, and 51 cases filed between 2005 and 2007 were closed. I did not count cases that remained pending in 2007.

The courts’ report shows the Western District dwarfs its sister district to the east when it comes to trademark activity. The Eastern District of Washington had only one trademark case filed, three terminated, and one pending in the year ending September 2007.

The Western District had 32 total trials during that time (17 jury, 15 nonjury). The median case that was disposed of in the year ending September 2007 lasted 8.1 months. The median case that was disposed of by trial lasted 19 months. (My analysis showed two trademark cases went to trial in the Western District in 2007.)

In all federal courts, 3,647 trademark cases were disposed of in the year ending September 2007. Thirty-three percent were terminated without any court action. Sixty-seven percent were terminated by court action. Fifty-five percent terminated before trial; 11% during or after pretrial; approximately 0.6% in a nonjury trial; and approximately 1% in a jury trial. As these figures indicate, less than 1.7% of all trademark filings were disposed of in a trial of any kind.

Thanks to the Trial Ad (and other) Notes for publicizing this report.

Apple’s iPod ad campaign has been copied and spoofed dozens of times. Nonetheless, Apple can’t be too happy about San Francisco-based Specialty’s Cafe and Bakery’s latest ads. I saw this placard yesterday in downtown Seattle. The worst of it is, these shops are quite good and well-known. Apple’s campaign is no longer fresh, and the link between ordering sandwiches and the Internet seems pretty weak. So why did Specialty’s copy Apple’s ads? It should be beneath them.

On March 7, Seattle-based Zovo Lingerie Co., LLC, filed a trademark infringement suit in the Western District against DHM Enterprises and Deanna Hodges, collectively doing business as Zova LA. At issue is whether defendants’ ZOVA and ZOVA LA trademarks are likely to confuse consumers with plaintiff’s registered ZOVO and ZOVO LINGERIE marks.

Also at issue is whose rights are senior. The complaint alleges that plaintiff sent defendants a cease-and-desist letter in November 2007, to which defendants responded by claiming they have senior rights because they first used ZOVA and ZOVA LA in 2001. Plaintiff’s complaint claims a trademark priority date of November 2004.

The case cite is Zovo Lingerie Co., LLC v. DMH Enterprises, Inc., No. 08-393 (W.D. Wash.).