Source: http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/2008/05/
Timestamp: 2016-05-01 21:17:33
Document Index: 756015316

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3344', '§43', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 1441', '§ 17200', '§43', '§17200', '§2201', '§ 271', '§ 283', '§ 43', '§ 1125', '§1114', '§501', '§1125', '§1125', '§14330', '§980', '§17200', '§ 2201']

» Posted On: May 29, 2008
Los Angeles, CA - Lawsuit Filed On Behalf Of Model To Stop Use Of Her Image, Photograph, Likeness In Association With Cosmetic Medical Company Removed To Federal Court – Cal. Civ. Code 3344
Los Angeles, CA – A lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging misappropriation of likeness/image for commercial purpose under Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 and unfair competition under the Lanham Act §43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125). Pamela Paulshock, an actress and model, alleged that defendant Heavenly Cosmetic used her photograph – without her authorization or compensation – in advertisements for its services in the field of cosmetic medical care and services published in L.A. Weekly Magazine. Based upon the federal cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, defendants filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) to move the case to the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, where the case is pending. The complaint alleges that “Plaintiff is the attractive female in the Defendant’s advertisement, is the focal point of the label, and is clearly visible and recognizable to the naked eye. At no time prior to or after the image was published, did Plaintiff consent to her image being published by the Defendant in this manner, nor to any agent or employee of the Defendant.” The complaint also asserts causes of action for invasion of common law right of privacy (unauthorized misappropriation of image/photograph) and unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The case is titled Shamshock v. Heavenly Cosmetic Medical SPA, CV08-03347 R (C.D. Cal. 2008).
Jewelry Patent Claim Construction (“Markman”) Ruling Issued By The Court In Jewelry Patent Infringement Lawsuit - Attorneys
In a jewelry patent infringement lawsuit pending at the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, after oral arguments by each party’s patent attorneys at the Markman hearing, the Court issued its claim construction ruling interpreting the disputed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,928,734 (“the ’734 patent”), 6,990,736 (“the ’736 patent”), 7,032,314 (“the ’314 patent”) and 7,076,972 (“the ’972 patent”). The patents cover jewelry rings made of tungsten carbide and a method for making such jewelry rings. The ’736, ’314, and ’972 patents are continuations-in-part of unasserted U.S. Patent No. 6,062,045, titled “Wear Resistance Jewelry.”
Costa Mesa, CA – Broadcom’s patent attorneys filed a patent infringement complaint at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, accusing SiRF Technology of infringing four of Broadcom’s patents. Icon states that it is “an award-winning innovator in the field of exercise equipment and provides a variety of consumer products.” Icon is the assignee of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,104,120, titled “Exercise Machine Control System.” Icon is also the owner by assignment of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,019,710, titled “Exercising Device With Elliptical Movement.” The first, U.S. Patent No. 7,310,104, is entitled “Graphics Display System with Anti-Flutter Filtering and Vertical Scaling Feature.” The next, U.S. Patent No. 6,501,480, is entitled “Graphics Accelerator.” The third, U.S. Patent No. 6,747,497, is entitled “High-Speed, Wide Bandwidth Phase Locked Loop.” And finally, U.S. Patent No. 5,525,127, is entitled “Unique Word Detector and Method for Detecting a Unique Word Within One of Several Windows Offset in Time.” The complaint alleges that SiRF sells chips which provide GPS functionality for devices and enables GPS devices to support graphics and video processing. The case is titled Broadcom Corporation v. SiRF Technology, Inc., SACV08-546 AG (C.D. 2008).
Oxnard, CA – A trademark infringement and Lanham Act §43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. 1125) lawsuit was filed by attorneys for Athena Cosmetics, Inc., at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana. Athena is the owner of USPTO trademark registrations for the Revitalash, Athena, and Athena Cosmetics trademarks. The complaint alleges that Defendants incorporated under the confusingly similar name of Athena Bioscience, also using it as a trademark, in addition to using the confusingly similar trademark of Athena Lash Serum. The complaint further asserts causes of action for unfair completion under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contract, and declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §2201 as to the ownership of the trademarks. The case is titled Athena Cosmetics, Inc. v. Athena Bioscience, SACV08-0532 AG (C.D. 2008).
Los Angeles, CA – Chiropractor Dr. Jeffrey James’ trademark attorneys filed a trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition, and a false advertising lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, against rival chiropractor Dr. Michael Karr, dba West Los Angeles Chiropractic. Dr. James asserts that he has provided chiropractic services under his personal name and “Westside Spine and Injury Center” – which function as his trademarks – in the Los Angeles area for over 20 years. Dr. James has also maintained a website since 2004 to attract potential consumers of his services throughout the United States and the rest of the world. The complaint states that over “the past 10+ years, [Dr. James] has built a strong following and became (sic) famous for his services, and the name 'Dr. Jeffrey James' has acquired secondary meaning as a designation of source or origin of the high quality services the [Dr. James] provides under the name 'Dr. Jeffrey James' and ‘Westside Spine and Injury Center.’”
Santa Ana, CA – Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.’s (“Icon”) patent attorneys filed a patent infringement complaint at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, accusing Corona, California based Nellie’s Exercise Equipment, Inc. and Octane Fitness, LLC of infringing two of Icon’s patents. Icon states that it is “an award-winning innovator in the field of exercise equipment and provides a variety of consumer products.” Icon is the assignee of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,104,120, titled “Exercise Machine Control System.” Icon is also the owner by assignment of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,019,710, titled “Exercising Device With Elliptical Movement.” Icon alleges that both defendants infringe on both of the patents through the manufacturing, importing, and/or sale of the Octane Fitness Q47 Series exercise device. “The conduct of [Defendants] as set forth hereinabove gives rise to a claim for infringement of the Asserted Patents, pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. Icon also asserts that it “is entitled to injunctive and monetary relief against [defendants], pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 283, 284, and 285. The case is titled Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC, et al., SACV 08-00437 CJC (C.D. Cal. 2008).
Los Angeles, CA: Trademark And Copyright Attorneys For Guru Denim/True Religion Apparel Sue To Stop Copying Of Jeans And To Protect Against Fakes/Counterfeits
Los Angeles, CA – Trademark and copyright attorneys for Guru Denim, a subsidiary of True Religion Apparel, filed a trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125) complaint at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles to stop copying of its jeans and sales of fakes and counterfeits. Guru Denim has sought copyright, patent, and trademark protection on its garments and jeans. Guru Denim owns U.S. Patent No. D547530 for the stitch pattern applied to True Religion Brand Jeans pants. Guru Denim owns two U.S. Copyright Registrations for the True Religion Brand Jeans Designs, Copyright Certificate of Registration numbers VA1-192-834 and VA1-301-845. Guru Denim owns a USPTO registered trademark for the “True Religion Brand Jeans World Tour Fashion for the Senses Section Row Seat.” Also, Guru Denim “owns registered United States trademarks in the pocket stitching pattern that appears on True Religion Brand Jeans pants and the overall stitching pattern on the front of True Religion Brand Jeans pants.” Guru Denim also has 4 USPTO registered trademarks for “True Religion Brand Jeans” with assorted designs. Finally, Guru Denim has registered its “True Religion” word marks with the USPTO. Guru Denim’s “line of ‘super-premium’ denim wear, which ranges in retail price from $170.00 to in excess of $300.00, is acclaimed in the fashion industry due to its famous name recognition which represents quality and distinguished craftsmanship. Each piece of clothing or pair of denim distributed under the Mark bears an emblem of a smiling Buddha strumming a guitar and, in some occasions, is elaborately embroidered.”
Guru Denim discovered that numerous defendants were selling allegedly fake and counterfeit jeans on their Websites. The complaint asserts that Guru Denim's investigator purchased a True Religion pair of jeans from the denimbutt.com website for $129.00 plus a shipping cost of $1.95, where the defendant causes confusion by claiming that it is “committed to selling only first-quality, genuine designer fashions (sic) items, clothes and accessories.” The complaint continues that Guru Denim’s “inspection of the purchased item using security measures confirmed that the item Defendants sold to the investigator was in fact a counterfeit pair of True Religion Brand Jeans denim pants.”
The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114; (2) Federal copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §501; (3) False designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); (4) Trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. §1125(c) and California Business & Professions Code §14330; (5) Common law copyright infringement under California Civil Code §980; (6) Unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code §17200; and (7) Unjust enrichment. The case is titled Guru Denim, Inc. v. Simon Halwani, et al., CV 08-02803 FMC (C.D. Cal. 2008).
PRACTICE NOTE: Guru Denim has used different forms of intellectual property to provide the broadest possible scope of protection to its products and business. Patent, trademark and copyright protection can overlap and protect different aspects of the same product and prevent unfair competition and infringing conduct that can affect your business. The complaint lists the following additional defendants: thedenimbutt.com, Jeans & Company, Joymic Corp., Digitally Discovered, Joseph Barsano, thedenimspa.com, denimliquidators.com, denimbuys.com, Denim Buy Liquidators, Jizzle Tech, and lovebubbleclothing.com.
UPDATE 6/18/2008: The Court entered a consent judgment permanently enjoining the defendant from selling any shoes that infringe on Nike's design patents, trade dress, and trademarks.
Los Angeles, CA – Patent attorneys for Branan Medical filed a declaratory judgment of invalidity, non-infringement, and unenforceability lawsuit, under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, in Federal District Court in Los Angeles, against Sun Biomedical Laboratories. Sun Biomedical sent a cease and desist letter to Branan Medical accusing its Oratect III Oral Fluid Drug Screen Device, OratectPlus Oral Fluid Drug & Alcohol Screen Device, and Fastect II Drug Screen Dipstick of infringing on US Patent Nos. 6,046,058 and 6,372,516. Branan Medical, fearing that it would be sued for patent infringement, filed the instant declaratory relief action seeking the Court's ruling on the patents at issue. The case is titled Branan Medical Corporation v. Sun Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., CV 08-01944 MMM (C.D. Cal. 2008)