Los Angeles Based Guess Loses Trademark Lawsuit to Gucci

May 31, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Los Angeles – A judgment has been made in a case that began three years ago and as of last month saw the inside of a court room. In the trademark infringement case between Gucci and Guess a judge has awarded Gucci with damages totaling $4.66 million as well as an injunction against Guess from using three of the four alleged infringing trademarks.

Gucci initially claimed that Guess was infringing on its green and red striped logo, a “G-Square” stylized mark, “Quattro G”, and a “G” script logo. The alleged infringing trademarks were being used on products such as purses, wallets, belts and shoes. Gucci claimed that these items were far too similar and confusing consumers which in turn caused a decline in profits for the luxury brand.

Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled in favor of Gucci although it was not awarded quite the amount of damages it had initially sought. Gucci was originally seeking damages of $120 million. After analyzing the damages, an expert stated that Gucci’s requested amount was “highly speculative” and therefore Judge Scheindlin stated that Gucci was not entitled to claims of damages that alleged the infringement caused harm to its brand. Also, Judge Scheindlin placed an injunction which prohibits Guess from producing three of the four alleged infringing trademarks. The trademark for the “G” script logo was excluded from the injunction.

In the opinion brief of the case Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote: “Over the past three years, the parties have put in countless hours and spent untold sums of money, all in the service of fashion–what Oscar Wilde aptly called ‘a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.’ It is my hope that this ugliness will be limited to the runway and shopping floor, rather than spilling over into the courts.”

Guess’ CEO Paul Marciano stated “Overall, we are extremely satisfied and vindicated that this case should have never been filed”. Gucci, as of yet, has not offered a statement. This has not been the first nor will it be the last of lawsuits to come for the luxury brand. Gucci was founded in 1921 and has been known to protect its brand ever since.

Los Angeles Marketing Firm Sued for Trademark Infringement

May 23, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Los Angeles – Los Angeles based D and D Marketing, Inc., doing business as T3 Leads, is being sued for trademark infringement for allegedly violating a San Antonio company’s trademark by using its name on various websites designed to generate business leads for other companies.

The trademark infringement complaint was filed by San Antonio-based USAA (United Services Automotive Association), a financial services company that provides banking, investing, and insurance services to individuals and families that serve, or served in the United states military. In its complaint, filed in a state district court in Bexar County, Texas, USAA claims that the infringing websites were responsible for generating leads that included the names and private financial information of consumers who had visited the sites to possibly obtain automobile insurance or financial services.

The same day that it filed its complaint, USAA also obtained a temporary restraining order to bar T3 Leads from using its name as any part of a domain name. Next week, a judge will decide whether the restraining order should actually become a temporary injunction.

USAA is alleging that T3 Leads is infringing its trademark by including the USAA name in several lead-generating websites, such as usaautoinsurancequotes.com, autoinsurancequotesusaa.com, payday-loans-usaa.com, and others. The websites were still active this week, however links to apply for a loan or to obtain insurance quotes had been disabled.

Paul Berry, a media relations executive for USAA, said in an email statement that “USAA is committed to protecting its reputation and ensuring that its members know when they are doing business with USAA, and that their personal information remains confidential.”

Operating in the field of “Internet affiliate marketing,” in which a merchant rewards affiliates for directing consumers to the merchant’s website to make a purchase, T3 Leads describes itself on its own website as the “premier Internet destination for quality leads and marketing opportunities” for web merchants and affiliates. The company’s CEO, Dmitry Fomichev, also named in the lawsuit, could not be reached for comment.

Besides allegedly infringing on USAA’s trademark by including it in domain names, T3 is also being accused of advertising the payday-loans-usaa.com website via a Twitter campaign.

Both Fomichev and D and D Marketing have been accused a trademark infringement before. Last summer, the entity was issued a permanent injunction barring it from using QuickClick or quickclickloans.com trademarks, after a Georgia company that operates the quickclickloans.com website sued it for trademark infringement. The parties reportedly reached an undisclosed settlement.

Lamborghini Files Trademark for ‘Huracan’

May 10, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Los Angeles – Lamborghini has recently filed for a new trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for ‘Huracan’. The word translates to ‘hurricane’ in Spanish and is also known in ancient Mayan history as the god of fire, wind and storms. Lamborghini filed in class 12 for ‘passenger cars and structural parts thereof’ and class 28 for ‘model cars’.

Although it is a guessing game to Lamborghini fans everywhere as to what kind of passenger car to expect, if the vehicle is anything close to the Urus SUV, which was unveiled at this year’s Beijing motor show, fans can expect to be pleasantly surprised.

Lamborghini has not produced a sports utility vehicle since the 1980′s boundary breaking LM002 until this year when it unveiled the Urus. The Urus is expected to go into production in 2015. Some believe that the Urus may actually eventually use the Huracan name instead. It is also rumored to be the replacement name for the revolutionary Gallardo.

In its history, Lamborghini has used words for its luxury cars that have a Spanish origin and are associated with bullfighting. For example, although we now know Murcielago to be one of the fastest cars in the Lamborghini family, the name originates from a famous Spanish bull. Also, Reventon, another Lamborghini trademark, was named after a bull that killed Felix Guzman, a famous bullfighter in 1943. Other Lamborghini cars whose names have a relation to Spanish bullfighting are the Gallardo and Estoque.

Obama Administration Gives Orders to File ‘GI Bill’ Trademark

May 3, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Los Angeles – President Obama recently gave a speech to members of the military and their families where he spoke about his outrage that members of the military and their families were being targeted and taken advantage of because of their GI Bill. The President said to the crowd, “Sometimes you’re dealing with folks who aren’t interested in helping you” and “they don’t care about you, they care about the cash.” For this reason, President Obama ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs to file for the trademark ‘GI Bill’. The Obama Administration believes that trademark filing will help to stop for-profit schools with “deceptively and fraudulently” targeting military families.

In 2010, President Obama created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was formed to specifically aid veterans, members of the military and their families. Within this Bureau was a special Office of Service Member Affairs which worked with these families to “make better informed decisions regarding consumer financial products and services.” However, after two years it seems as though military families are still being targeted by private for-profit colleges and universities that are eager to enlist these individuals for federal money in its pocket, also known as the GI Bill.

In his speech this week, Obama gave an example of a for-profit college that recruited marines with brain injuries who couldn’t remember what they signed up for. He called this example “appalling and disgraceful” and urged the crowd to be aware of these types of people by saying, “they’re trying to swindle and hoodwink you.” Many of these colleges and universities have created websites to give the appearance that it is connected to the government in order to appeal to these families in particular.

President Obama is scheduled to sign an order that includes programs such as “Know Before You Owe”, which schools can participate in through a voluntary basis. The “Know Before You Owe” program will allow potential students to get an estimate of just how much their education may cost them in total so that they are not blindsided by additional fees, interest, and/or penalties. This will also help with determining if a college or university is considered accredited before enrolling.

In an opposing view of the President’s actions, Sgt. 1st Class Brian Cain stated, “To me the president needs to be taking care of world-sized problems” and “this is kind of like trying to kill a fly with an M-1 Abrams tank.” Sgt. Cain stated that his chain in command already has programs set up to look out for these scams. The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, a representative of for-profit schools, stated it was “disappointed Obama decided to bypass the Congress.”

The GI Bill is estimated to pay out a staggering $9 billion this year alone to educate approximately 600,000 veterans. It is no wonder that according to a recent report by the Senate, for-profit schools spend a combined total of $3.7 billion on recruiting and marketing alone.

Los Angeles Based LMFAO Reveals Meaning of Name in Trademark Application

April 23, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Los Angeles – LMFAO, the electronic pop duo with chart topping hits including “Sorry for Party Rocking” and “Sexy and I Know It” was recently required to reveal the meaning of its name in trademark filings. To this point it has been a mystery with much speculation as to what the acronym of the Los Angeles based pair really stood for. Included in the speculation were names such as “Loving My Friends and Others.”

Trademark Attorneys representing LMFAO have recently filed four trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In the ‘Miscellaneous Statement’ portion of the applications it is stated that “the term LFMAO stand for “laughing my freaking ass off.” Apparently, parents can breathe a sigh of relief that the ‘F’ stands for “freaking” as opposed to a certain four letter word that many claimed it to be. In 2008, when the band originally attempted to trademark its name, its applications were refused by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s examining attorney who claimed that the trademark consisted of “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter.” In other words, trademarks with cuss words cannot be registered with the USPTO. With that lesson learned the band let those applications abandon and changed its strategy this time around.

The duo consisting of Stefan Kendal Gordy aka “RedFoo” and Skyler Austen Gordy aka “SkuBlu” have also filed for another questionable trademark containing a word that the USPTO may not approve. Appart from its envelope pushing trademark applications, the band has also filed for the “Party Rock” trademark. So, not only can you listen to LMFAO on the radio but you can also wear its “Party Rock” clothing as LMFAO are the owners of trademark registrations Nos. 4,010,158 and 4,013,318 for “Party Rock” in class 25 for apparel.

Rosetta Stone Trademark Infringement Case Against Google is Revived

April 19, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Los Angeles – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has given Rosetta Stone the opportunity to once again try and prove that Google committed trademark infringement on several of its trademarks.

In 2009, the language software maker sued Google for trademark infringement and accused the web search giant of selling trademarked Rosetta Stone phrases to “phony” or “copycat” software makers who in turn were Rosetta Stone’s competitors. Rosetta Stone accused Google of allowing third party companies to purchase keywords such as its trademarked “Rosetta Stone” and “language library” so that when these words are searched sponsored ads of competitors appear. In response to this accusation a representative of Google stated, “We think that the legitimate use of trademarks as keyword triggers helps consumers to make more informed choices” and “For what remains of the case, we’re confident we will prevail on both the merits and the law.”

In 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Rosetta Stone’s lawsuit along with the allegations against Google. The Eastern District Court of Virginia concluded that selling keywords does not cause confusion to consumers searching for the goods of Rosetta Stone. However, this week in Richmond, Virginia a panel of three judges in the Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a majority of the lower court’s decision and now the case can be heard in federal court. Rosetta Stone’s accusations that Google committed trademark infringement and negatively impacted the Rosetta Stone brand will be reviewed once again.

Michael Wu Rosetta Stone’s trademark attorney stated, “We’re deeply concerned about trademark infringement including the rampant problem of inline counterfeiting confusing consumers regarding our products.” In its ruling, the Fourth Circuit of Appeals is directing the lower court to directly review just when Google began to “dilute” the trademarks owned by Rosetta Stone and if such trademarks were considered to be famous at the time.

In the original complaint filed against Google, Rosetta Stone claimed, “In April, 2004, Google adopted a policy change that permitted its customers to bid on third-party trademarks as keywords, even though its previous policy did not permit this if the trademark owner objected.” Rosetta Stone claimed that Google changed its policy so it would increase its revenue by an estimated billion dollars.

Companies such as Ford Motor, Coach and 1-800 Contacts are among the many supporters of Rosetta Stone as these large corporations have previously filed similar lawsuits against Google which were based on confusingly similar sponsored links. If the outcome of the case sides with Rosetta Stone then Google may be in jeopardy of losing a large portion of its search revenue.

Trayvon’s Mom Seeking to Trademark Rally Chants

April 11, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Los Angeles – In a case that has garnered international media attention over the shooting death of a seventeen-year-old Florida boy, the boy’s parents are attempting to trademark phrases chanted in rallies organized to pressure police into making an arrest in the boy’s death.

Teenager Trayvon Martin was shot to death February 26th by a neighborhood watch patrolman, who claims he acted in self defense against the un-armed youth. The phrases “I am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon” have been repeatedly chanted by supporters outraged over the fact that police have not arrested George Zimmerman on murder charges.

Trayvon’s parents insist that they are not trying to make money off of their slain son, but want to secure the trademarks to spread awareness about the case. Last week, Trayvon’s mother, Sabrina Fulton, applied to register the two trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The trademark applications cover digital media, CD’s and DVD’s.

“We just appreciate the support that we’ve been receiving,” Fulton stated to news reporters last week. “We’re thinking about next steps and the plans we need to take right now to try to get some justice for our son.”

The trademark attorney representing the family indicated that the family wanted to register the trademarks over fear that people would try to profit by exploiting their son’s death. One example the lawyer gave was someone falsely claiming to be raising funds for the family. Besides the issue of preventing others from exploiting the family’s tragedy, the lawyer also stressed that another purpose of the trademark filings was to keep putting pressure on the Sanford, Florida police to make an arrest in the case.

Trayvon’s family is reportedly planning to start a foundation in the teen’s name and wants to protect the phrases for the foundation’s future use. The family’s goal of the foundation is to help others dealing with similar issues.

Just days after Trayvon’s mother filed her trademark applications, Los Angeles musician Marcus Singletary applied for the trademark “Justice for Trayvon” to appear on hooded sweatshirts. Singletary cited that he is interested in providing assistance to the family if the product is successful. He indicated that he wants to sell the hooded sweatshirts in protest to some popular media figures who felt that it was significant to claim that the teen was possibly shot over appearing suspicious because of his wardrobe choice, a hooded sweatshirt.

‘Imported From Detroit’ Trademark Lawsuit Headed to Mediation

April 2, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Los Angeles – Chrysler Group LLC and Pure Detroit are headed off to mediation after a year of battling over the ‘Imported From Detroit’ trademark. The lawsuit stems from March 2011 when Chrysler sued Pure Detroit and its owners for using the phrase ‘Imported From Detroit’ on T-shirts in its retail and online stores. In 2011, Chrysler had just launched its new campaign for the Chrysler 200 in a two-minute television commercial during the Super Bowl XLV in which it used the slogan ‘Imported From Detroit’. Chrysler claimed that Pure Detroit began selling the ‘Imported From Detroit’ T-shirts directly after that Super Bowl in which its campaign was launched.

In the following month of April 2011, Pure Detroit countersued Chrysler claiming that it did not have a valid use to the trademark because the “phrase is geographical, descriptive and arguably misleading.” Pure Detroit’s claim was also based on the fact that the auto company is based in Auburn Hills, Michigan and the assembly of the Chrysler 200, as shown in the advertising campaign, was assembled in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Also stated in the lawsuit was Chrysler’s request that the court allow ceasing all sales of Pure Detroit’s T-shirts that used the slogan. However, after reviewing the case, Judge Arthur Tarnow of the U.S. District Court rejected Chrysler’s motion because there was no evidence that the automaker would suffer irreparable harm if the T-shirts were available for purchase. Therefore, throughout the lawsuit Pure Detroit has continued selling T-shirts using the slogan ‘Imported From Detroit”.

Pure Detroit is owned by Moda Group LLC, a merchandise retailer with ties to Detroit, who in April 2011 filed a letter of protest with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office against the ‘Imported From Detroit’ trademark for “varying uses of the phrase.”

In a statement posted on its website Pure Detroit states, “Chrysler does not have exclusive rights to the phrase “IMPORTED FROM DETROIT” because it is merely descriptive and not a protectable trademark.” Chrysler confirmed the agreement to use mediation but had no further comment. Both companies have until April 3, 2012, to inform the court if an agreement has been reached through mediation.

Los Angeles Promoter 1oak Entertainment Sued for Trademark Infringement

March 20, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Los Angeles – Butter IPH LLC filed a lawsuit on Friday against Jayson Sanchez in Las Vegas federal court for trademark infringement. Butter IPH claims that Mr. Sanchez is infringing on its multiple 1 OAK trademarks by using them to promote his Los Angeles based company “1oak Entertainment Group.” The lawsuit states that Mr. Sanchez’s company, a music entertainment promoting agency, is infringing on Butter IPH’s current pending Trademark Applications with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office which include words only and design marks of “1 OAK One of a Kind.” The Applications were filed in international class 41 for night clubs and class 43 for bar services and cocktail lounge services.

In the lawsuit filed Friday, Butter IPH claims that its popular 1 OAK Nightclub in New York is “synonymous with glamour, luxurious excess, fame and fortune” and its latest 1 OAK club which opened in Las Vegas earlier this year at the Mirage Resort & Casino is “the hottest new nightclub in Las Vegas.”

On 1oak Entertainment Group’s website, 1oakmusic.com, it states that it is a “full service music management company based in Los Angeles, CA.” 1oak Entertainment Group works with nightclubs, bars, and restaurants to book music acts and entertainment.

With both companies in the entertainment industry it is no surprise that Butter IPH took such action. The lawsuit states “The defendants could have adopted a trademark that did not include ’1 OAK’ and/or ‘One of a Kind’, such as Entertainment Group or Sanchez Entertainment Group, or any of a host of other names that would not have infringed upon Butter’s rights,” and “Instead, by using Butter’s trademarks, the defendants are trading off of Butter’s goodwill and reputation.”

Jason Sanchez or a representative from 1oak Entertainment Group has yet to make a statement. Butter IPH LLC is requesting that the Las Vegas court grant its injunction to block Mr. Sanchez and 1aok Entertainment Group from using the name “1oak.”

Swiss Shoe Maker Loses to K-Swiss in Trademark Infringement Dispute

March 12, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Los Angeles – Swiss orthopedics and fashion sports shoe maker Kuenzli SwissSchuh AG has lost an ongoing trademark infringement dispute against K-Swiss and will give up its iconic five stripes trademark.

In light of staggering legal costs, the Swiss company’s decision to drop the trademark came after it lost a trademark infringement case earlier this year to K-Swiss in a Duesseldorf superior court. Based on that court’s ruling, Kuenzli was not able to use the five stripes on its shoes sold in Germany because it had not registered the trademark. This decision came down despite the fact that Kuenzli, which helped found K-Swiss, has been using the five stripes trademark for over fifty years, long before the American company.

“The legal row has brought us close to ruin,” commented Kuenzli owner and Chief Executive Officer Barbara Artmann. “That’s why we decided to drop the five stripes and introduce a new trademark that uses five blocks. Since we are also a fashion sports shoe producer, the move may be beneficial as today many sports shoe makers use stripes,” she added.

Founded in 1966 by Swiss immigrant brothers Art and Ernie Brunner, the California-based K-Swiss first registered the five stripes trademark back in 1974 around the same time it launched its legendary white leather tennis shoe line. The Swiss brothers, who had become interested in tennis after immigrating to the United States, began importing Kuenzli tennis shoes. Much of K-Swiss’s success has been attributed to Kuenzli founder, Kurt Kuenzli, who’s name is the inspiration for the K in K-Swiss.

K-Swiss also reportedly used a near identical version of the Kuenzli tennis shoe as the inspiration of its famous line of tennis shoes.

Founded in 1927 in Switzerland, Kuenzli began using the five stripes logo in the 1950′s for its line of orthopedic boots that utilized a special lacing technology in which the five stripes offered a stabilizing function. The company patented the lacing technology, however on the advice of its lawyer at the time, did not register the stripes as a trademark.

A spokesperson for K-Swiss would not comment on the issue.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →

Page 5 of 9« First...34567...Last »