Seattle Trademark Lawyer

In 2008, AdJuggler, Inc., sued Adjog.com in the Western District for trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and other forms of unfair competition. 

AdJuggler places online advertisements. It alleged that Adjog.com registered the Adjog.com domain name and began using ADJOG on a Web site in connection with “various services including ad serving and ad serving management and related solutions on the Internet.” AdJuggler alleged this use created a likelihood of confusion with its ADJUGGLER registered trademark.

Adjog.com did not answer AdJuggler’s complaint. As a consequence, on March 9, AdJuggler obtained a default judgment.

The judgment transfers the Adjog.com domain name to AdJuggler. Judge Robert Bryan also found the case was “exceptional” and awarded AdJuggler its attorney’s fees. The court directed AdJuggler to file a statement of fees within twenty days. The court did not award damages.

The case cite is AdJuggler, Inc. v. Adjog.com, No. 08-5627 (W.D. Wash. March 9, 2009).

Experience Hendrix, LLC, has sued HendrixLicensing.com, Ltd., d/b/a Hendrix Artwork, for trademark infringement.

The complaint, filed in the Western District on March 5, alleges that HendrixLicensing.com and its owner, Andrew Pitsicalis, sell products under the HENDRIX, JIMI HENDRIX, and HENDRIX ARTWORK word marks, and Jimi Hendrix “headshot” and “signature” design marks. The suit also alleges that HendrixLicensing.com wrongly describes its goods as being endorsed by Jimi Hendrix’s family.

If the suit sounds familiar, it’s because Experience Hendrix last month obtained a stipulated $3.2 million judgment and permanent injunction against Electric Hendrix, LLC, and its owner, Craig Dieffenbach, for their use of similar Hendrix marks in connection with the sale of vodka. (STL post here.)

In the instant suit, Experience Hendrix alleges that Mr. Pitsicalis has worked with Mr. Dieffenbach and Electric Hendrix, and was deposed in the Electric Hendrix case. Experience Hendrix alleges it gave Mr. Pitsicalis notice of the court’s injunction against Electric Hendrix and Mr. Dieffenbach, but HendrixLicensing.com continues to use the Hendrix name and signature in promoting its products without Experience Hendrix’s permission.

The suit does not name Mr. Dieffenbach, nor does it suggest he has violated the terms of the court’s injunction against Electric Hendrix and him.

Defendants have not yet filed an answer.

The case cite is Experience Hendrix, LLC v. HendrixLicensing.com, Ltd., No. 09-285 (W.D. Wash.).

Oregon speciality lighting manufacturer Laughing Rabbit has been busy with trademark issues up here in Seattle. It settled its differences with defendant UView Ultraviolet Systems Inc. over UView’s allegedly infringing use of FREEDOM in connection with flashlights, and on Feb. 26 filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal withdrawing those claims.

The very next day, it filed a trademark infringement suit against Photon Light Boards, Inc., alleging that defendant’s PHOTON-branded illuminated skateboards (depicted above) are likely to confuse consumers with Laughing Rabbit’s use of PHOTON in connection with microlights, penknives, and headlamps.

The case cites are Laughing Rabbit, Inc. v. Uview Ultraviolet Systems, Inc., No. 08-1637 (W.D. Wash.), and Laughing Rabbit, Inc. v. Photon Light Boards, Inc., No. 09-264 (W.D. Wash.).

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).

 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.