Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Seattle alternative newspaper The Stranger discussed a threatened trademark lawsuit today in its blog, Slog. It states the Women’s Expressive Theater, Inc., of New York has sent “four cease and desist letters” to the Washington Ensemble Theatre of Seattle over the latter’s acronym, WET. Last year, Women’s obtained a federal registration for WET in connection with “education and entertainment in the nature of theater productions, live readings of plays, screenplays and fiction, organizing panel discussions, conducting workshops, providing facilities for showing films, all related to women and the arts.” Women’s apparently thinks Seattle theatergoers are likely to be confused between the two companies since they are both WET for short.

The Stranger quotes a Washington Ensemble member as asking: “What is the state of nonprofit theater in America today when one theater across the country doesn’t believe we can co-exist in a national marketplace, and would rather tie up both their artists and ours in lawsuits and going to court instead of making art?”

That’s a great question. Let’s hope we never find out.

Thanks to Spam Notes blogger Venkat Balasubramani for bringing this story to my attention.

On Oct. 5, Seattle physician Ray Liao, M.D., agreed to a preliminary injunction enjoining him pending trial from “infringing upon the [American Board of Anesthesiology, Inc.’s] name and certification marks,” and from “[m]aking any representation, including any use of brochures, certificates, letterhead, business cards or other written information indicating or implying that the defendant is Board certified by the ABA.”

The ABA’s Sept. 18 complaint alleges that Dr. Liao intentionally used the ABA’s certification mark, THE AMERICAN BOARD OF ANESTHESIOLOGY and design, with the “clear intent to deceive others into believing that he is an ABA Diplomate and that he is an ABA-certified anesthesiologist.” In particular, the ABA alleges that Dr. Liao provided a representative of the Northwest Credentials Verification Service a “counterfeit reproduction of an actual ABA certificate” that contains Dr. Liao’s name and states that he is “qualified to serve as a consultant in anesthesiology” when he had not been Board certified in anesthesiology by the ABA.

Dr. Liao has not yet answered the ABA’s complaint.

The case cite is American Board of Anesthesiology, Inc. v. Liao, No. 07-1458 (W.D. Wash.).

Norm Zada, founder of Perfect 10, talks to InsideCounsel about losing millions to copyright infringement, how he’d stop infringers, and why the Ninth Circuit was wrong in deciding his case. Here’s a sample:

InsideCounsel: “The 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 that the credit card companies were not liable for contributory copyright [and trademark] infringement because they did not ‘materially contribute’ to the infringements. What is wrong with this reasoning?”

Mr. Zada: “Some of the panel just doesn’t get it. It is not the policy of the U.S. to aid and abet those who profit from massive theft…. We know what happens to someone who is fencing stolen property. There is civil and criminal liability. But if you are fencing $50 billion of stolen IP, you don’t even have any civil liability, according to this panel. It is unbelievable…. According to the majority of the panel, this doesn’t contribute to infringement, even though we allege that these infringing Web sites wouldn’t be in business without these credit card systems…. The ruling makes no sense and is a horrific departure from prior interpretations of contributory infringement. The standard here would vitiate contributory liability.”

STL discussion of Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Svc. Ass’n., __ F.3d __, 2007 1892885, No. 05-05170 (9th Cir.), here and here.

The 43(B)log beat me to a new trademark case that’s worth checking out. On Sept. 26, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District of Arizona’s preliminary injunction enjoining defendant Tim Oey “from making any comments that could be construed as to disparage upon [the plaintiff Freecycle Network’s] possible trademark and logo” and requiring Mr. Oey to “remove all postings from the [I]nternet and any other public forums that he has previously made that disparage [The Freecycle Network’s] possible trademark and logo.”

Just as interesting as the opinion is the list of attorneys weighing in on Mr. Oey’s behalf. It includes Marty Schwimmer, Mark Lemley, Lawrence Lessig, “Amici 38 Intellectual Property Law Professors” and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. With firepower like this, you know the stakes were high. For a summary of the decision, check out Prof. Tushnet’s post.

The case cite is The Freecycle Network, Inc. v. Oey, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2781902, No. 06-16219 (9th Cir.).

The Western District today denied Cascade Financial Corp.’s and Cascade Bank’s motion for preliminary injunction against Issaquah Community Bank, Capital Bancorp, Ltd., and Robert Ittes. (STL coverage of this case here and here.) Plaintiffs had argued that defendants’ use of ISSAQUAH COMMUNITY BANK as a name and trademark infringes plaintiffs’ ISSAQUAH BANK trademark for competing banking services. Judge Thomas Zilly decided the motion without oral argument.

The court stated it will enter an opinion explaining the basis for its ruling at a later date.

The case cite is Cascade Financial Corp. v. Issaquah Community Bank, No. 07-1106 (W.D. Wash.).