Seattle Trademark Lawyer

After a slow start in 2007, plaintiffs are making up for lost time. Two trademark suits were filed in the Western District in January. Only one was filed in February. And in March, there already have been six. Here’s a summary of the latest:

*Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage Co., Inc., v. Lundberg, No. 07-5127 (filed March 19). The Seattle-based mortgage lender alleges that defendants’ use of EVERGREEN MORTGAGE in connection with their competing Seattle-based mortgage lending business infringes plaintiff’s trade name and service marks, including EVERGREEN MONEYSOURCE MORTGAGE COMPANY, EVERGREEN MONEYSOURCE, and EVERGREEN HOME LOANS.

*Cascade Fresh, Inc. v. Lifeway Foods, Inc., No. 07-0374 (filed March 13). Plaintiff sells health foods, including a specialty brand of smoothies under the trademark GO WITH THE FLOW. Defendant competes with plaintiff and allegedly uses the slogan “Go with the Flow” in its ads, which plaintiff alleges is likely to cause confusion with plaintiff’s mark.

*Hi-Rise Technology, Inc. v. Amatuerindex.com, No. 07-0349 (filed March 8). Plaintiff owns the registered service mark THE AMATEUR INDEX. Plaintiff alleges defendant is using plaintiff’s mark in its domain name, amateurindex.com, in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

*Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. v. Neuronetics, Inc., No. 07-0351 (filed March 7). Both parties are medical device companies. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s use of the marks NEUROSTAR, NEUROSTAR TMS THERAPY, NEUROSTAR and Design, and NEUROSTAR TMS THERAPY and Design infringe Plaintiff’s trade name and trademark NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE.

The Pacific Northwest press has latched onto the MOONSTRUCK versus MOONRAY trademark infringement suit discussed here and here.

Oregon’s daily newspaper, The Oregonian, ran a story today.

Not to be outdone, The Seattle Times ran an editorial today saying no infringement exists and calling for the dispute to be settled.

Quick update on The Seattle Times poll, which asked: “In your opinion, is there a trademark issue here?” As of Wednesday morning, two days after the question was first posed, 2,064 readers have responded. The response remains roughly the same as STL reported on Monday: 93% answer “No,” 5% answer “Yes,” and 2% answer “I don’t know.”

Full disclosure: STL’s publisher represents Moonray Espresso in the litigation.

The Seattle Times ran a front page story today on the Western District infringement suit, Moonstruck Chocolate Co. v. Moonray Espresso Corp., No. 07-0091. At issue is whether the Duvall-based Moonray Espresso cafe is likely to cause confusion with the Portand-based Moonstruck Chocolate, a chocolatier and owner of “chocolate cafes” located in Oregon, California, and Illinois.

STL’s publisher is defending Moonray Espresso in the case.

Of particular interest was an online poll that asked readers: “In your opinion, is there a trademark issue here?” As of 6 p.m., 1,555 readers had responded. Here’s what they said:

Yes - 5%

No - 93%

I don’t Know - 1%

A colleague commented that perhaps a better question might have been: “In your opinion, is ‘Moonray Espresso’ likely to cause confusion with ‘Moonstruck Chocolate?’” His point was that newspaper readers — even newspaper reporters — can mix up the law of trademarks, copyrights, and patents, but everyone knows what confusion is. I think he’s right. However, I do think the poll correctly indicates most consumers (if not the vast majority) would not confuse the source of coffee purchased at a small town cafe with a chocolatier located 200 miles away — whether the chocolatier also sells coffee or not.

I have strong opinions about this case, but I’ll save them for our briefs.

A copy of Moonstruck Chocolate’s complaint is accessible here.

Owners of the Jimi Hendrix family of trademarks have sued over use of the deceased musician’s name in connection with the marketing of vodka. Experience Hendrix, LLC, and Authentic Hendrix, LLC, filed suit yesterday in the Western District against Washington-based Electric Hendrix, LLC, Electric Hendrix Apparel, LLC, Electric Licensing, LLC, and Craig Diffenbach. The suit alleges a number of trademark claims, including infringement, dilution by blurring, and dilution by tarnishment.

The complaint alleges Mr. Diffenbach formed Electric Hendrix, LLC, in 2005 for the purpose of selling, bottling and marketing vodka as HENDRIX ELECTRIC, JIMI HENDRIX ELECTRIC, or JIMI HENDRIX ELECTRIC VODKA.

Plaintiffs allege use of those marks, “a similar Jimi Hendrix ‘headshot’ logo and Jimi Hendrix signature, the slogan ‘A JIMI HENDRIX FAMILY COMPANY,’ and Experience Hendrix’s song and album titles, along with other elements, to advertise and sell Mr. Diffenbach’s and Electric Hendrix’s products are intended to deceive and defraud the public and to pass off and palm off their vodka and other merchandise as authorized by the Hendrix family companies and Jimi Hendrix’s heirs.”

Plaintiffs state that Experience Hendrix, LLC, owns the registered trademarks JIMI HENDRIX, AUTHENTIC HENDRIX, and EXPERIENCE HENDRIX (and Design), in connection with clothing, ordering services, magazines, sound recordings, and entertainment services, as well as a number of common law marks associated with the musician.

The Seattle Times reports the Hendrix family especially objects to the use of Mr. Hendrix’s name to sell vodka. 

“In view of the circumstances of my brother Jimi’s death, this attempt to associate his name with the sale of alcohol beverages amounts to a sick joke” stepsister Janie Hendrix said in a statement released yesterday.

The Hendrix family is connected with the plaintiffs in this case.

Starbucks Corp. is opposing an Indian entrepreneur’s plans to start a 25-store coffee chain called “Starstrucks,” news services report.

“Why should I give it up?” Shahnaz Husain asked about her company’s name. “Hundreds of others are deceptively similar. What to do? They have opposed and we will fight.”