Category Archives: Litigation

Smiley Face Cookie Trademark Infringement Suit

Posted on January 5, 2010 | Leave a comment

On December 31, 2009, Eat’n Park, a restaurant group with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, filed suit against Crumb Corps, a Texas corporation, for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition.

The complaint alleges that Crumb Corps sells “Smiley Faces” cookies which have a design that is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of Eat’n Park and are directly competitive products to the Eat’n Park SMILEY face cookies. Crumb Corps’s cookies are available via retail stores, catalogs, and online. Eat’n Park alleges that Crumb Corp’s sale of cookies using its smiling face design and the SMILEY word mark constitutes unfair competition.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Trademark, Trademark Law, Unfair Competition

Tagged , ,

Preliminary Injunction Denied in Barnes & Noble nook Case

Posted on December 6, 2009 | Leave a comment

Spring Design Inc. filed suit against Barnesandnoble.com, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging three causes of action: (1) breach of written non-disclosure agreement, (2) misappropriation of trade secrets, and (3) common law unfair competition. Plaintiff “delivers innovative e-reader solutions and products to the e-book market.”

The factual allegations are as follows:

February 12, 2009 – Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a non-disclosure agreement. February 17, 2009 – Plaintiff presented its design for a dual-screen navigation electronic reader to an e-reader product consultant hired by Defendant.
May 13, 2009 – Plaintiff gave a presentation to a group of Defendant’s executives including a PowerPoint presentation with an overview of its design for an Android-based eReader named “Alex.” The PowerPoint slides indicated that they were confidential and subject to the NDA.
July 23, 2009 – Defendant emailed Plaintiff requesting a summary of Plaintiff’s product development. Plaintiff provided Defendant with an update, including a PowerPoint slide explaining how specific features of Alex represented a unique departure from Amazon’s Kindle 2, the main competitor of Defendant’s planned e-reader.
October 20, 2009 – Defendant announced the release of nook, its Android-based interactive dual-screen electronic reader that included features of Alex.

On November 30, 2009, the Court held a hearing and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Trade Secret, Trade Secret Law

Tagged , , ,

Pittsburgh Inventor Wins Patent Infringement Case

Posted on November 24, 2009 | Leave a comment

Ren Junkins is an independent inventor from Kilbuck Township, a suburb of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He owns more than 70 patents in the window covering field.

Mr. Junkins filed suit against HT Window Fashions in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on February 27, 2007 for patent infringement based on U.S. Patent No. 7,182,120 for “Tabbed Multi-Cellular Shade Material.” The cellular shade product has pleats on the front and tabs on the back.

On November 18, 2009, a judgment was entered in favor of Mr. Junkins in the amount of $154,776 as a result of a jury verdict. The jury decided that HT Window Fashions infringed Pat. ‘120 by selling its Polaris double cell window shades.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , ,

Defendants in Burt Hill, Inc. Case File Countersuit

Posted on November 21, 2009 | Leave a comment

The defendants in the Burt Hill, Inc. v. Hassan et al (Case No. 2:2009cv01285) unfair competition, trademark infringement, and misappropriation of trade secrets case (in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania) filed a countersuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges the following:
1. Breach of contract;
2. Violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law;
3. Wrongful termination;
4. Defamation;
5. Abuse of process;
6. Intentional infliction of emotional distress;
7. Breach of fiduciary duty of a director and officer.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Trade Secret, Trademark

Tagged , , ,

AT&T Sues Verizon Over Coverage Maps in Advertisements

Posted on November 6, 2009 | Leave a comment

4061077_thumbnailOn November 3, 2009, AT&T filed suit against Verizon seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and damages over “disseminating misleading coverage maps in television and print advertisements” about AT&T’s voice and data network.  (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Cellco Partnership, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.) The cause of action is based on alleged misleading comparative advertising by Verizon in violation of the Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and related Georgia laws.

In October 2009, Verizon began a new advertising campaign promoting its “3G” network coverage area using radio, print, and television advertisements.  In one television advertisement and at least one radio advertisement, Verizon claimed that “AT&T customers were ‘out of touch’ where AT&T ‘3G’ coverage is not available.”  In television and print advertisements, Verizon showed a “3G” coverage map attributed to AT&T with large white areas showing no cell phone coverage.

On October 7, 2009 AT&T contacted Verizon requesting that the advertisements be withdrawn or modified to be accurate.  In response, Verizon removed the words “out of touch” and superimposed the phrase “Voice & data services available outside 3G coverage areas” at the end of the television advertisements.

AT&T claims that Verizon misleads consumers by implying that AT&T customers who are not in the “3G” coverage areas have no coverage at all.  AT&T explains that AT&T also covers the United States with a “2.5G” wireless network coverage area that exceeds the “3G” network.  Although slower than the “3G” network, the “2.5G” network still provides customers with the ability to browse the internet, send electronic emails, and send text messages.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in False Advertising, Intellectual Property Law, Litigation

Tagged , , ,

Google Chrome Lawsuit

Posted on November 4, 2009 | Leave a comment

An Israeli corporation filed suit against Google Inc. for patent infringement relating to Google’s new browser, Google Chrome, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 26, 2009. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,546,552, entitled “Difference Extraction Between Two Versions of Data-Tables Containing Intra-References” is owned by Red Bend Ltd. Red Bend Software is the exclusive licensee within the United States of the ‘552 Patent. (“Red Bend Ltd.” and “Red Bend Software” will be collectively referred to as “Red Bend.”)

Red Bend alleges that Google has “manufactured products and provided instructions regarding the use of those products that constitute or effect contributory and/or induced infringement of the ‘552 Patent.”

Red Bend provided two examples of Google’s alleged infringement:

1. Google’s implementation of its differential compression algorithm for making Google Chrome updates significantly smaller, used by Google and others under the direction and control of Google, infringes one or more claims of the ‘552 Patent; and

2. Google’s publication and distribution of the source code for the algorithm induces others’ infringement of one or more claims of the ‘552 Patent.

Red Bend has requested compensation including a reasonable royalty, lost profits and lost future profits, plus interest. Google has not yet filed an Answer.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , , ,

University of Pittsburgh Files Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit

Posted on October 30, 2009 | Leave a comment

pittThe University of Pittsburgh has been in a patent litigation suit with Varian Medical Systems, Inc. since the University of Pittsburgh filed a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 13, 2007. The University of Pittsburgh owns two patents pertaining to image-guided radiation therapy technology: U.S. Patent No. 5,727,554 entitled “Apparatus responsive to movement of a patient during treatment/diagnosis” and U.S. Patent No. 5,784,431 entitled “Apparatus for matching X-ray images with reference images.”

On September 1, 2009, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the Defendant.

The University of Pittsburgh filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 28, 2009.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , , , ,

API Technologies Settles Data Network Patent Infringement Case Against Facebook et al

Posted on October 16, 2009 | Leave a comment

data systemAPI Technologies, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 6,859,699 entitled “Network-Based Method and System for Distributing Data.” On May 12, 2009, API Technologies filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging patent infringement against Facebook, Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon Web Services LLC; AOL LLC; Mapquest, Inc.; Bebo, Inc.; Truveo, Inc.; Best Buy Co. Inc.; CBS Corporation; CBS Interactive Inc.; CBS Interactive Media Inc.; CNET Investments, Inc.; CNET Networks, 2 Inc.; Last.FM Limited; The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation; Hoover’s, Inc.; Google Inc.; Android, Inc.; Thomson Reuters Corporation; Thomson Reuters PLC; Thomson Reuters U.S. Inc.; Thomson Reuters U.S.A. Inc.; Reuters America, LLC; and Yahoo! Inc.

API claimed that defendants infringed the ‘699 Patent “by, among other things, making, using, selling and/or offering for sale systems and/or methods for providing data using a data transmission network covered by one or more claims of the ‘699 Patent.”

API provided the example that:

Facebook provides users with systems or methods, including Application Programming Interfaces, for providing user interfaces for soliciting selections of desired data. Facebook then uses the data transmission network to receive an input signal representing a selection of desired data, and retrieves and transmits that data. Facebook then generates license codes with embedded information that is related to a valid product code associated with a specific device or system. Facebook requires the use of such license codes to access the desired data.

Several defendants filed answers to the complaint. On October 13, 2009, an order granted a motion to dismiss the case subject to the terms of a confidential settlement agreement dated September 22, 2009.

According to BusinessWeek, API Technologies, LLC provides software solutions to the gaming, law enforcement and security industries.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Patent, Patent Law

Tagged , , ,

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Strikes Down Trademark Law as Overbroad

Posted on October 10, 2009 | Leave a comment

On October 5, 2009, in a 4-3 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Trademark Counterfeiting Statute,18 Pa.C.S. § 4119, is unconstitutionally overbroad.

The Trademark Counterfeiting Statute provides:

(a) Offense defined.– Any person who knowingly manufactures, uses,
displays, advertises, distributes, offers for sale, sells or possesses with intent
to sell or distribute any items or services bearing or identified by a counterfeit
mark shall be guilty of the crime of trademark counterfeiting.

* * * * *
(i) Definitions.– As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall
have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

“Counterfeit mark.” Any of the following:
(1) Any unauthorized reproduction or copy of intellectual
property.

(2) Intellectual property affixed to any item knowingly sold,
offered for sale, manufactured or distributed or identifying
services offered or rendered, without the authority of the owner
of the intellectual property.

“Intellectual property.” Any trademark, service mark, trade name,
label, term, device, design or word adopted or used by a person to
identify that person’s goods or services.

18 Pa.C.S. § 4119.

A statute is unconstitutionally overbroad only if the statute criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech.

The Commonwealth argued that the Trademark Counterfeiting Statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad because it is limited to persons with the intent to sell or distribute items with counterfeit trademarks and thus does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. The Commonwealth also relied on a proposed amendment to the statute, statutes from sister states, and the mens rea in the Crimes Code.

The Supreme Court held that under the definition of “intellectual property” any use of a “term” or “word” that is “engaged by another person to identify that person’s goods or services is a ‘counterfeit mark’” which is unconstitutionally overbroad.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Trade Secret Law, Trademark

Tagged , ,

Chevron Files Trademark Infringement Suits

Posted on October 7, 2009 | Leave a comment

texaco drawingFranchise arrangements often involve a variety of intellectual property rights. Disputes can arise when a franchisee’s license ends, but the franchisee continues to sell a product associated with the franchise or the franchisee continues to display the franchise’s signage.

On September 22, 2009, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (“Chevron”) filed two separate trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against defendants who allegedly owned and operated automobile gasoline and service stations with infringing signage and materials (2:09-cv-01292-AJS and 2:09-cv-01293-TFM).

Chevron owns over twenty trademarks and service marks including trademarks for TEXACO, Star T Design, Service Station Canopy Design, Gasoline Pump Design, and a Building Design for automobile services. There are over 1,500 TEXACO-branded stations currently licensed to use such marks.

Chevron’s authorized TEXACO-branded stations sell TEXACO brand gasoline. Licensed TEXACO-branded service station facilities are authorized to use and prominently display exterior and interior signage that bear Chevron’s registered TEXACO and Star T Design trademarks. Buildings of licensed TEXACO-branded facilities also often have an exterior appearance consisting of: (1) a red and black building in combination with silver and dark gray, with the Star T Design mark; and (2) a rigid canopy over the gas pumps with a black background and a red border, including the TEXACO and Star T Design marks on the side of the canopy.

For a period of time from 2001 to 2006, Chevron licensed the use of the TEXACO marks through Shell Oil Company and other related companies. Chevron claims that the defendants once operated as a licensed TEXACO-branded service station and sold TEXACO brand gasoline and other products. By June 30, 2006 defendants were no longer selling or supplying TEXACO brand gasoline and were no longer authorized licensees of Chevron. At that time, defendants were obligated to remove the TEXACO marks from their facilities, but defendants still have not. Chevron alleges that while defendants’ facilities are presently not operational, defendants displayed and used the infringing signage after June 30, 2006 and defendants continue to display signage on the premises.

Defendants have not yet filed Answers.

- Katie Cooper

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Trademark, Trademark Law

Tagged , , ,