Seattle Trademark Lawyer

On July 16, Cascade Financial Corp. and Cascade Bank filed suit in the Western District against Issaquah Community Bank, Capitol Bankcorp., Ltd., and Robert Ittes, over defendants’ alleged plan to use the infringing mark, ISSAQUAH COMMUNITY BANK.

Cascade alleges that Mr. Ittes founded Issaquah Bank in 1992. Issaquah Bank opened its second branch in 1997. Thereafter, it registered the domain names issaquah-bank.com and issaquahbank.com. It also obtained a Washington trademark registration for ISSAQUAH BANK, together with its logo and the tagline, “Your Community Bank.”

Cascade states it is a community bank that offers a full range of financial services to business and consumer clients through its twenty branches located throughout King and Snohomish Counties, and through its website, www.cascadebank.com. 

Cascade alleges it acquired Issaquah Bank in 2004. After the merger, it claims Issaquah Bank operated as the “Issaquah Bank Division of Cascade Bank,” with Mr. Ittes serving as its president. In April 2005, Mr. Ittes left Issaquah Bank Division of Cascade Bank. Cascade claims, on information and belief, that defendants now intend to start a new bank using the ISSAQUAH COMMUNITY BANK name and mark. Cascade believes the new bank will offer substantially the same services and will directly compete with Cascade. It alleges that consumers will be confused between the parties’ names and marks.

Defendants have not yet answered the complaint.

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

As a local story, this is a reach. But I went to school in Minnesota, so I was interested to read in the Star Tribune that a Colorado jury last week found the large Minnesota co-op Land O’Lakes had infringed a Fort Collins-based animal feed maker’s PROFILE trademark. In doing so, the jury awarded plaintiff Cache La Poudre Feeds $500,000 in actual damages and $14.6 million in profits it found Land O’Lakes had received under the mark. (The jury’s verdict form is here.)

The media rightly characterized the case as one of “David and Goliath.” Cache is family-owned and operated, with four to eight employees. By contrast, Land O’Lakes is owned by 7,000 dairy farmers and 1,200 community cooperatives. Last year, it had 8,500 employees and revenues of $7.27 billion.

The Denver Post reported that Cache had used PROFILE regionally since 1992 in connection with several goods, including a “show feed used by ranchers trying to produce grand-champion steers, lambs and pigs.” Cache claimed in 2002, a Land O’Lakes subsidiary launched a nationwide marketing campaign “consolidating and re-branding” 400 of its animal feed products under an identical mark.

The jury sided with Cache, finding that Land O’Lakes had acted “willingly and with bad faith” in infringing Cache’s mark.

Land O’Lakes has attempted to minimize the award as being “advisory,” stating the judge will have the final say.

On a related note, the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal covered the story under the headline “Land O’Lakes fined $15.2M in copyright suit.” Besides being a trademark (not a copyright) dispute, and the fact the jury awarded damages (not a fine), the article actually wasn’t that bad.

The case cite is Cache La Poudre Feed, LLC v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., No. 04-00329 (D. Col.).

STL recently reported on a local band name case: the Wailers of Tacoma versus the Wailers of Jamaica. Yesterday, Tacoma’s News Tribune published a column on the controversy.

A copy of plaintiffs’ complaint is here.  Defendants have not yet answered.

The case cite is Ormsby v. Barrett, No. 07-5305 (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiff Northstar Neuroscience, Inc., and defendant Neuronetics, Inc., appear to have settled their trademark dispute over the mark NEUROSTAR. This is based on the Stipulation of Dismissal the parties jointly filed in the Western District today.

Northstar filed its complaint against Neuronetics on March 7, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, cancellation of trademark registration, and common law infringement and unfair competition. The dispute arose out of Neuronetics’ use of the marks NEUROSTAR, NEUROSTAR TMS THERAPY, NEUROSTAR and Design, and NEUROSTAR TMS THERAPY and Design in connection with medical devices used to treat neurological and psychiatric disorders. Northstar had alleged those marks infringed Northstar’s prior rights to NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE, which Northstar also uses in connection with neurostimulation therapies for people suffering from stroke and other neurological diseases and disorders.

Terms of the apparent settlement are not known — to STL, at least. The case has not yet been dismissed, but it will be as soon as Western District Judge John Coughenour signs the stipulated order.

The case cite is Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. v. Neuronetics, Inc., No. 07-0351 (W.D. Wash.).

Topline’s getting into the spirit of suing. After settling with six of nine defendants in the infringement suit over its FLIRT trademark, Bellevue shoe maker The Topline Corp. has filed suit against another alleged infringer, this time over Topline’s REPORT trademarks. STL’s coverage of Topline’s suit against Flurt Footwear and others is available here.

Topline’s new suit, brought June 18 in the Western District against 4273371 Canada, Inc., and Modextil, Inc., jointly doing business as Report Collection, objects to the defendants’ alleged marketing and sale of a new line of women’s apparel under the marks REPORT and REPORT COLLECTION. Topline’s complaint states that defendants own a federal registration for the mark REPORT COLLECTION for men’s clothing and accessories, the application for which defendants allegedly filed after Topline’s first use of REPORT for women’s footwear.

Topline claims it has used REPORT, REPORT:, and REPORT SIGNATURE in connection with the marketing and sale of women’s footwear since as early as March 1993. It claims to own federal registrations for REPORT: for women’s shoes, REPORT for women’s and girls’ footwear, and ONE ON 1 BY REPORT for women’s and children’s fashion shoes.

Topline alleges defendants first introduced their women’s apparel line in the United States at a trade show in September 2006, and have only manufactured and sold a limited number of women’s goods in the U.S. under these marks. It also alleges that defendants have filed an opposition to Topline’s application for federal registration for the mark REPORT SEATTLE for women’s shoes.

Topline claims defendants’ use of the REPORT COLLECTION and REPORT marks in connection with the sale and marketing of women’s clothing and accessories is likely to cause confusion and thus infringes Topline’s trademarks.

Topline also has filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants have not yet answered Topline’s complaint or responded to the motion.

The case cite is The Topline Corp. v. 4273371 Canada, Inc., No. 07-0938 (W.D. Wash).