Source: https://oregonintellectualproperty.com/category/district-of-oregon/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:06:58+00:00

Document:
prAna vs. apana…are you confused?
The Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit sells “sustainable clothing for yoga, travel, and outdoor adventure enthusiasts” using the PRANA word mark and logo. The PRANA trademark has been used since as early as 1992, and even this non-yogi is aware of the well-known brand.
The Defendants are accused of selling yoga apparel under the confusingly similar name “apana,” coupled with a logo that Plaintiff feels is confusingly similar to prAna’s distinctive logo design.
“Like “prana,” “apana” is also well-known to those who practice yoga, and is closely related as the balancing vayu to the prana-vayu. It is situated in the pelvic floor, and reflects energy that moves downwards and outwards.” “prana and apana are opposing, yet balanced forces. Where ‘prana’ regulates the intake of particles and energy, ‘apana’ is responsible for the elimination of the unabsorbed residues.” Assuming regular yoga folks know all this, wouldn’t that be an argument against confusion?
What do you think…are the trademarks confusingly similar? Sound off in the comments below and stay tuned for updates. This one could get interesting.
prAna Living, LLC v. IFG Corp. et al.
Plaintiff Counsel: Nicolas F. Aldrich, Angela E. Addae of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
The Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit, Helen of Troy Limited, is the owner of the immensely popular HYDRO FLASK trademark, used in connection with vacuum insulated stainless steel water bottles and other insulated products. Helen of Troy’s affiliate Steel Technology, LLC d/b/a Hydro Flask, an Oregon limited liability company with headquarters in Bend, Oregon, founded the HYDRO FLASK brand and product line in 2009 and today is the North American marketer and distributor of HYDRO FLASK-branded products. What Pacific Northwesterner doesn’t own at least one Hydro Flask for their weekend hiking (or brewery-visiting) adventures?
Numerous defendants, some perhaps related, are accused of selling counterfeit Hydro Flask products via counterfeit websites. Given the evidence presented in the voluminous Complaint and Exhibits (see below), the counterfeiting seems fairly apparent. The Plaintiff has filed a subsequent Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, likely the best way to deal with multiple infringing (and non-responsive) websites.
If the counterfeiting wasn’t obvious and there was any question whether the Defendants were fighting an uphill battle, the Plaintiff’s lead attorney, Mrs. Benedick, previously served as a Judicial Extern for the presiding judge, Michael Simon.
The Complaint’s Exhibit List is extensive and voluminous, with Exhibit 5 perhaps taking the record for the largest ever Exhibit logged by this blog, at a gargantuan 633 “never mind the PACER charges” pages.
This lawsuit will likely be a one-sided battle, with excellent high-value legal work on behalf of the Plaintiff and probably no response from the Defendants. However, if the end result is numerous injunctions and a (brief) stop to Hydro Flask counterfeiting, Plaintiff can be satisfied, at least for awhile.
Plaintiff has offered insurance under the trademark RED SHIELD since 1979.
Red Shield Insurance Company v. Red Shield Administration, Inc.
Defendant: Red Shield Administration, Inc.
Plaintiff Pacific Fence & Wire Company, an Oregon corporation based in Clackamas, Oregon, has used its PACIFIC trademark in connection with fences, fencing materials, and fencing services since as early as 1921.
Plaintiff brings this action because the Defendants are allegedly willfully infringing Plaintiff’s PACIFIC trademark by using the trademark PACIFIC NW FENCE & DECK to advertise and provide fencing services and by using the domain name pacificnwfenceanddeck.com.
Defendants apparently agreed to discontinue use of their trademark in 2016, temporarily stopped use in 2017-2018, but have since revived their use of the allegedly infringing trademark, hence this lawsuit.
Pacific Fence and Wire Company v. M&M Pacific NW Contracting LLC et al.
Plaintiff Counsel: Owen W. Dukelow, David P. Cooper of Kolisch Hartwell, P.C.
This trademark action sees Bob’s Red Mill Natural Foods, a popular producer of natural, certified organic, and gluten-free milled grain products, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a “Certified Gluten-Free” certification mark owned by the Gluten Intolerance Group of North America.
Rejecting those requests, Bob’s Red Mill brings this lawsuit to obtain a judgment declaring that it may use its own gluten-free indicator, without having to seek the permission of, or pay money to, the Gluten Intolerance Group.
Plaintiff: Bob’s Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc.
THERAPIA v. THERAPYDIA…are you confused?
The plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit has been using the unregistered THERAPIA trademark for 7 years in connection with alternative medical services such as acupuncture, chiropractic therapy, massage, fertility consultation and treatment, and herbal medicine. Therapia operates in Portland, Oregon and promotes its services via its website, http://www.therapiaclinic.com.
The defendant, Therapydia Inc., is a national network of physical therapy and wellness clinics. Therapydia has locations in Portland, Beaverton, and Lake Oswego. Therapydia provides traditional (vs. alternative) medical services.
This trademark case should be interesting. Stay tuned for updates.
Therapia P.C. v. Therapydia, Inc.
The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Westcare, is a Salem, Oregon-based provider of management services to long-term care facilities. Plaintiff claims to have used their “Westcare” mark since 1987. Plaintiff obtained a federal trademark registration in October 2017.
The defendant, Westcare Foundation, is a Nevada non-profit corporation that operates long-term and short-term care facilities, including a veterans’ facility in Salem, Oregon.
The defendant allegedly first began operating in Oregon in June 2012. Plaintiff became aware of the defendant’s Oregon facility in June 2016, and asserts numerous instances of actual consumer confusion.
Plaintiff sent a series of letters requesting that defendant adopt a DBA, with no success, hence this lawsuit. Stay tuned for updates.
Westcare Management, Inc. v. Westcare Foundation, Inc.
The plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action, Outsidepride.com, Inc., seeks a declaration that its MINICLOVER trademark has not infringed the defendant’s rights in its MICROCLOVER® branded clover seed.
Outsidepride.com, Inc. v. DLF Pickseed USA, Inc.
Defendant: DLF Pickseed USA, Inc.
The plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit is an Oregon-based business “offering a full range of electrical services, including but not limited to residential, commercial and industrial services along with a comprehensive service department.” Plaintiff has used an ON ELECTRIC trademark since January 2015 in connection with its electrical services.
Both parties operate in Portland, Oregon and the surrounding areas. The complaint (below) alleges numerous instances of actual confusion among suppliers, advertisers, customers and others.
On Electric, LLC v. On Electric Group, Inc.
Defendant: On Electric Group, Inc.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.