Seattle Trademark Lawyer

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.).

Western District Judge Franklin Burgess passed away on Friday.

“He was a legend on two courts,” Western District Chief Judge Robert Lasnik said in an article today in The Seattle Times, referring to Judge Burgess’ basketball prowess while a student at Gonzaga University. During the 1960-61 season, Judge Burgess led the nation with an average of 32.4 points per game.

“In both venues, he distinguished himself as a person of great talent and great humility, beloved by the people he played and worked with,” Judge Lasnik said.

Judge Burgess began as a magistrate judge in 1981 and was confirmed as district court judge in 1984. He was appointed by President Clinton and served in Tacoma.

He went on senior status in 2005 but continued hearing cases.

Judge Burgess was 75. He had been battling cancer.

A memorial service reportedly is planned for April 10.

This is a great loss for the attorneys who had the honor of appearing in his court. He will be long remembered.

MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. sued Tata Sons Ltd. last year in the Western District to prevent the transfer of its oktatabyebye.com domain name following an adverse WIPO decision finding that MakeMyTrip had registered the domain name in bad faith. (STL post here.)

MakeMyTrip argued that “Ok, tata, bye bye,” is a common phrase in India. Tata Sons argued the domain name infringed its TATA trademarks.

As of March 18, the case is stayed.

At the time MakeMyTrip filed suit, the parties already had a similar action going in India. The parties stipulated that “The India action is based on substantially similar facts as the U.S. action, and, like the U.S. action, also seeks to prevent the transfer of the oktatabyebye.com domain name to Tata Sons.”

To avoid the duplication of parallel suits, the parties agreed to stay the Western District action pending the outcome of the India action. Indeed, the parties agreed to accept the outcome of the India action if it results in a judgment.

In the parties’ words: “The parties agree that, in the event the court presiding over the India action rules or otherwise determines that one of the parties is entitled to the oktatabyebye.com domain name, the parties will cooperate with one another and perform any other acts reasonably necessary to secure that party’s control of the oktatabyebye.com domain name and resolve this action.” 

The case cite is MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Sons Ltd., 09-1261 (W.D. Wash. March 19, 2010).

National Products, Inc., sued its competitor Gamber-Johnson, LLC, in the Western District for false advertising.

Both parties sell mounting systems for laptops in emergency vehicles.

Gamber-Johnson distributed a video touting the benefits of its system versus other mounting systems, including one developed by National Products. The video was narrated by David Long, a frequent speaker on airbag safety, ambulance driving, and other types of emergency-responder driving techniques. Gamber-Johnson selected Mr. Long because Mr. Long had sufficient name recognition in the industry to lend some additional credibility to Gamber-Johnson’s marketing project.

Interestingly, Mr. Long’s contribution to the video consisted only of reading off a teleprompter. He did not contribute to the content of the script or conduct any tests supporting the comparison analysis of the different mounting systems.

Gamber-Johnson moved on summary judgment to dismiss National Products’ claim, including on the basis that various statements in the video were not literally false. 

On March 16, Western District Judge James Robart granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court’s description of the literal falsity element about Mr. Long’s “analysis” and “investigation” is of particular interest.  

In the video, Mr. Long represents that the video is the product of his “analysis” and “investigation.” He also states: “I have stripped down and analyzed comparable vehicle mounting systems from six manufacturers” and “we have examined a lot from safety and design to fasteners and attention to detail.”

The court found, however, that Mr. Long testified in his deposition that he was only a paid narrator and that he was hired to read the teleprompter; he was not asked to conduct an evaluation or investigation of the mounting equipment featured on the video. Gamber-Johnson’s vice president of marketing, Scott Zuelke, also testified that Mr. Long’s statement in the video that he had “stripped down and analyzed comparable vehicle mounting systems from six manufacturers” was literally false.

The court found that “Even in the face of Mr. Zuelke and Mr. Long’s testimony that the statement was false, Gamber-Johnson continues to assert that there is no genuine dispute that the statement was true. The court can find no support for this bald assertion. Regardless, at a minimum, the court finds there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the truth of Mr. Long’s statement regarding his own analysis and investigation of the various mounting systems.”

The case cite is National Products, Inc. v. Gamber-Johnson, 2010 WL 1005871, No. 08-0049 (W.D. Wash. March 16, 2010) (Robart, J.).

Routine lawsuit. Interesting back story, courtesy of SeattlePI.com.

On March 11, Microsoft Corp. filed a typosquatting complaint in the Western District against Alf Temme, Lars Temme, and their unincorporated company known as “Romfab” and “Rom Fab.”

Microsoft says the father-and-son team registered 25 domain names that are confusingly similar to Microsoft’s HOTMAIL brand. Think ho0tmail.com, hotma9l.com and hlotmail.com. 

The plan? To get additional eyeballs on a Web site advertising their $14,615 exercise machines.

Yes, they’re apparently behind the odd-looking ROM “Time Machine” exerciser advertised in magazines that claims to provide a full workout in “exactly 4 minutes per day.”

The P-I talked with the senior Temme, who explained his strategy in registering the domain names. (He also denies his son is involved.)

“Every form of advertising is a form of annoyance,” he said. “The bottom line is, though, for every kinda 10,000 views, one person might buy something.”

He defended his strategy as fair competition.

“It’s just like if you were to buy some property next to Disneyland. Put a hotel on it, you should not be able to get sued for ‘property squatting,’” he said. “It basically means that one is taking advantage of a situation where people who, prior to getting to the Disneyland Hotel, bump into this hotel that is offering a competing rate.”

Mr. Temme reportedly told the P-I he is willing to give up the domain names. He has not yet answered Microsoft’s complaint.

The case cite is Microsoft Corp. v. Temme, No. 10-408 (W.D. Wash.).