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.).

Plaintiff Kristen Colliander performing with the “Angels”

Seattle entertainer Kristen Colliander performs under the names Kaycee Cole and Kristen Collianeli.

She filed suit today in the Western District against Douglas Naftzger, d/b/a Goldberg Entertainment Inc. 

Ms. Colliander alleges that Mr. Naftzger and his company engaged her from February 2005 to July 2008. During that time, she says she created the “choreography, stage direction, custumes, and all other creative elements” in a burlesque-style song and dance tribute now known as “The Angels: A Pussycat Dolls Tribute.” She also claims she owns the ANGELS trademark in connection with the show.

Ms. Colliander claims that even though she’s separated from Mr. Naftzger and his company, they continue to use her “copyrighted material, trademark, unique pseudonyms, images, and likeness in promotional and marketing materials for infringing ‘Angels’ performances” without her permission.

Given her other allegations, Ms. Colliander not surprisingly also states: “There is no written instrument detailing the business relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants, including any assignment of ownership in any right, claim, or interest in and to any intellectual property or privacy rights belonging to Plaintiff, including performances, sound recordings, or other media.”

Along with copyright infringement, Ms. Colliander states claims for misrepresentation under the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement, and violation of Washington’s right of publicity statute.

Defendants have not yet answered the complaint.

The case cite is Colliander v. Naftzger, No. 10-0536 (W.D. Wash.).

The Seattle Times ran a story today on Washington Mutual’s efforts to protect its trademark rights.

The failed bank reportedly still uses a number of marks in Canada and Mexico.

The story says that WaMu continues to prosecute applications to register THE CARD THAT REWARDS YOU AND YOUR PET; YOUR PET. YOUR CARD. PERFECT TOGETHER.; and WHOO HOO.

WaMu also has opposed a Florida bank’s application to register SIMPLIFY BANKING. MAGNIFY LIFE. on claim that the mark is confusingly similar with WaMu’s prior mark, SIMPLER BANKING. MORE SMILES.

“I guess attorneys need to create work,” the Florida bank’s CEO reportedly said.

WaMu says it has the bankruptcy court’s permission “to protect and maximize the value” of its assets, “including its valuable intellectual property, to benefit the company’s bankruptcy estate and its creditors.”

The bank reportedly told the bankruptcy court it expects to obtain less than $1.5M in value for its “non-core” trademarks and domain names that do not mention Washington Mutual or its “WaMu” nickname.

The article invites criticism of what must look like throwing good money after bad. 

But if there’s value in WaMu’s trademarks, domain names, and other intellectual property, paying lawyers to preserve that value for the benefit of the bank’s creditors makes good sense — even if it costs $30k per month to do so (the amount the bank reportedly paid its intellectual property lawyers for such work in January).

Of course, if WaMu stopped using the marks when it stopped functioning as a bank — and did not intend to resume use —  then the marks would be deemed abandoned and wouldn’t have any value at all.

A court can’t weigh evidence on summary judgment, no matter how tempting it might be to do so.

That’s what the Ninth Circuit found the Central District of California did in the ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. v. Money Management International, Inc., trademark infringement case.

Money Management argued that it had prior common law use of its MY SCOREK trademark so it did not infringe ConsumerInfo.com’s rights.

The district court, however, found there were essentially no sales under the mark to support that claim. Therefore, it granted summary judgment to ConsumerInfo.com.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed. On March 11, it found there was at least minimal evidence in the record of Money Management’s use of the mark in commerce. It concluded that the district court’s not crediting such evidence on summary judgment was error.

“The district court did not credit evidence of actual sales by MMI under its mark. MMI argues that, it presented a spreadsheet which — according to the testimony of Charles Stanley — contained a record of numerous sales under MMI’s mark. The district court found this record to be ‘unreliable’ because the spreadsheet itself did not reference MMI’s mark; thus the district court did not take the spreadsheet into account. In making this determination the district court improperly weighed evidence, discounting Stanley’s testimony. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to MMI, this spreadsheet coupled with Stanley’s testimony, tends to show sales under the mark.”

The case cite is ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. v. Money Management Int’l, Inc., 2010 WL 882868, Nos. 08-56705 and 09-55228 (9th Cir. March 11, 2010).

Infringing use of CAKE BOSS? Plaintiff says so in Western District suit 

On March 11, plaintiff Masters Software, Inc., filed suit in the Western District against Discovery Communications, Inc., The Learning Channel, Inc., and reality TV star Bartolo “Buddy” Valastro for trademark infringement.

Plaintiff owns a trademark registration for CAKEBOSS in Class 9 in connection with “computer software for bakery business management, namely financial recipe, order, time, and contract management tools,” in Class 41 in connection with “providing online instruction in the field of baking cakes via a global computer network,” and in Class 43 in connection with “providing information in the field of culinary arts about baking for baking enthusiasts via a global computer network.” Plaintiff also claims it licenses its mark to a third party in connection with bakeware and cake decorating supplies.

Defendants own or participate in TLC’s popular ”Cake Boss” television show featuring the travails of a creative New Jersey cake bakery.

Plaintiff claims jurisdiction in the Western District is proper because TLC is based in Washington.

Defendants have not yet answered plaintiff’s complaint.

The case cite is Masters Software, Inc. v. Discovery Communications, Inc., No. 10-405 (W.D. Wash.).