Skip to content

DJ Zatkoff Grants Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Counterclaims In Energy Drink Suit

21-Aug-10

Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enterprises Corp., Case No. 09-13783, 2010 BL 185434 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2010).

In this action by Innovation Ventures, LLC (“Innovation”), the seller of 5-HOUR ENERGY two-once energy drinks, for trademark infringement and false advertising, the defendant asserted counterclaims for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. Innovation moved to dismiss. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff granted the motion to dismiss, without leave to amend. The court ruled that the defendant, Bhelliom Enterprises Corp. (“Bhelliom”), failed to state a claim on its antitrust counterclaims for distributing an allegedly misleading “Legal Notice” concerning a competing product, fraud before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and a pattern of frivolous lawsuits. More…

Filed in Antitrust Violations, Lanham Act, Motion to Dismiss, Trademark | Tagged , | Comments (0) »

Cases Filed Week of July 12, 2010

05-Aug-10

Winmark Corporation v.  Sports Exchange, 1:10-cv-12768-TLC-CEB, filed on July 14, 2010. Winmark licenses a a chain of retail sporting goods stores that operate under the name “Play-it-Again Sports.” Winmark alleges that former franchisee Sports Exchange failed to pay royalties owed under the franchise agreement. Winmark seeks an injunction to prevent Sports Exchange from using trademarks and for fees owed under the franchise agreement. Plaintiff is represented by Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone, PLC.

Bird Brain, Inc. v. Luminosities, 2:10-cv-12764-VAR-RSW, filed on July 13, 2010. Plaintiff, Bird Brain sells decorative products under the trademark “FIREPOT.” Plaintiff claims that defendant Luminosities sells home decor items on its website using the mark “FIREPOTS.” Bird Brain alleges that the use of “FIREPOTS” likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the products and seeks to enjoin Luminosities from using the mark and to recover damages. Bird Brain is represented by Butzel Long PC.

Remark, LLC v. Adell Broadcasting Corp., 2:10-cv-12767-GCS-MKM, filed on July 13, 2010. Remark alleges that Adell Broadcasting produced and broadcast at least two commercials similar to its “Remarkable mouth” commercial. Remark claims that it has been using “Remarkable mouth” and “Hot lips” to promote radio stations for more than 25 years. Remark seeks damages and a permanent injunction to prevent Adell from using the “Remarkable mouth” commercial. Remark is represented by Grace & Grace, LLP.

Coach, Inc. v. Fezzani, 2:10-cv-12807-LPZ-PJK, filed on July 15, 2010. Coach owns several trademarks for “Coach.” Coach alleges that defendant sold merchandise bearing the “Coach” logo, including sunglasses, shoes, wallets, hand bags, boots belts, watches, scarves and hats. Coach seeks damages and injunction to prevent defendant from selling Coach brand products. Coach is represented by Gonzales, Saggio & Harlan, LLP.

Coach, Inc. v. D Clothing, 2:10-cv-12813-RHC-RSW, filed on July 1, 2010. Coach owns several trademarks for “Coach.” Coach alleges that defendant sold merchandise bearing the “Coach” logo, including wallets , shoes, wallets, scarves and hats. Coach seeks damages and injunction to prevent defendant from selling Coach brand products. Coach is represented by Gonzales, Saggio & Harlan, LLP.

Cottage Inn Carryout & Delivery, Inc. v. True Freedom Investments, LLC., 2:10-cv-12833-AC-MJH, filed on July 19, 2010. Cottage Inn is a franchisor of “Cottage Inn” brand. Defendant True Freedom Investments was a former franchisee. Cottage Inn alleges that True Freedom failed to pay royalties that were owed under the franchise agreement. Cottage inn also alleges that True freedom was using Cottage inn trademark after the termination of the franchise agreement. Cottage Inn is seeking a temporary and permanent injunction barring True Freedom Investments from operating a pizza delivery business and using the Cottage Inn trademark. Cottage Inn is represented by Pear, Sperling, Eggan & Daniels, PC.

Coach, Inc. v. Dollar Mart, 5:10-cv-12515-JCO-MKM, filed on July 16, 2010. Coach owns several trademarks for “Coach.” Coach alleges that defendant sold merchandise bearing the “Coach” logo. Coach alleges that defendant offered to sell handbags, wallets, sneakers, shoes and watches under the Coach brand name.. Coach seeks damages and injunction to prevent defendant from selling Coach brand products. Coach is represented by Gonzales, Saggio & Harlan, LLP.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0) »

TechShop, Ford Motor Co. Collaboration Highlighted

30-Jul-10

In a recent New York Times article, William J. Coughlin, CEO of Ford Global Technologies LLP and Adjunct Professor at Cooley Law School’s Graduate Program in Intellectual Property Law, discussed a new collaboration between Ford and TechShop. The collaboration will promote innovation in the Michigan automobile industry. You can read the full article HERE. Prof. Coughlin will be teaching Trade Secret Law in the Fall term.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0) »

Cases Filed Week of July 5, 2010

18-Jul-10

Henderson v. Carter, Case 2:10-cv-12675-SFC-VMM, filed on July 6, 2010. Plaintiff Michael Henderson, a noted musician and recording artist, alleges claims for copyright infringement and Lanham Act violations against the defendants, artists known as “Murs” and “9th Wonder,” based on the prominent use of Henderson’s recording, “Wait, Until The Rain” in the defendants’ recording, “3:16 pt. 2.” Henderson is represented by Dobrusin & Thennisch, PC.

Henderson v. Broadus, Case 2:10-cv-12675-SFC-VMM, filed on July 6, 2010. In this action, plaintiff Michael Henderson alleges claims for copyright infringement and Lanham Act violations against the defendants, including the noted musical figure “Snoop Dogg,” based on the prominent use of Henderson’s recording, “Wait, Until The Rain” in the defendants’ recordings, “Riding” and “Flashbacks.” Henderson is represented by Dobrusin & Thennisch, PC.

Henry Clark Stroke Foundation v. American Heart Association, Case No. 2:10-cv-12689-SJM -MAR, filed on July 7, 2010. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant infringed its copyright in the original song, “Let’s Talk Stroke,” by using the lyric “Let’s talk stroke because stroke is no joke” in a nationwide publicty campaign, including a stoke awareness website www.strokenojoke.org. The plaintiff is represented by pro se counsel.

Garden Fresh Salsa Co. v. Garden Fresh Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-12708-RHC -VMM, filed on July 8, 2010. The plaintiff, which owns the registered marks “Garden Fresh Gourmet” and “Garden Fresh Gourmet Salsa” alleges that the defendant is marketing products with confusingly similar logo and trade dress. Examples of the products at issue in the case are posted HERE. Garden Fresh Salsa Co. is represented by Dobrusin & Thennisch, PC.

Gabay v. Park West Galleries, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-12702-PJD -MAR, filed on July 8, 2010. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made and sold unauthorized reproductions of his original fine art works. The plaintiff is represented by Kaufman, Payton & Chapa.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0) »

Cases Filed Week of June 28, 2010

16-Jul-10

ABB Inc. v. Robotic Visiontech, LLC, Case No. 2:10-cv-12626-JCO-PJK, filed July 1, 2010. ABB, Inc. alleges, among other things, that the defendants continue to use ABB trademarks on their websites following the breakdown of the parties’ business relationship. ABB is represented by Sommers Schwartz PC.

Dixie Consumer Products LLC v. AJM Packaging Corp., Case No. 2:10-cv-12612-AJT-RSW, filed on July 1, 2010. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant infringes its “Lime Cay” design mark and copyright on its “Lime Cay” line of disposable plates and bowls. (See Images of products at issue in the case.) Dixie Consumer Products LLC is represented by Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC and Fullbright & Jaworski, LLP.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0) »

DJ Cohn Rules that Published Articles Were Prior Art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103 in Patent Case

07-Jul-10

Novo Nordisk, A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., Case No. 05-40188, 2010 BL 129682 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2010)

Defendant Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Caraco”) challenged the validity and enforceability of plaintiff Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk, Inc. (“Novo”)’s ‘358 patent on grounds of obviousness and inequitable conduct. District Judge Avern Cohn ruled that, of two references, one reference constituted prior art under In re Foster and 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) and the other reference will constitute prior art unless Novo can establish an earlier date of invention. DJ Cohn utilized a two-part test to analyze whether a particular publication could qualify as prior art under either section 102(a) or (b). More…

Filed in Inequitable Conduct, Patent, Prior Art | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0) »

DJ Cleland Grants Defendant Attorney Fees in Abuse of Anti-cybersquatting Act Case

07-Jul-10

Career Agents Network, Inc. v. careeragentsnetwork.biz et al., Case No. 09-CV-12269, 2010 BL 147163 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 29, 2010).

In this anti-cybersquatting case, plaintiff Career Agents Network, Inc. (“CAN”) alleged that the websites careeragentsnetwork.biz and careeragaentnetwork.biz (“domains”) were registered in a bad faith attempt to profit.  The unknown owner of these websites posted a single page of text on each domain indicating that CAN’s business opportunities were a poor investment.  CAN alleged a violation of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) and filed for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against the domains, which the court granted in part by having the site owner’s identity revealed:  Lawrence White and Aeromedia Marketing, Inc.   White was a prior customer of CAN’s recruiting product, and he and Aeromedia Marketing, Inc.  were  joined with the domains as defendants.  The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted on February 26, 2010. Thereafter, they filed a request for an award of attorneys fees. District Judge Cleland ruled that an objective inquiry into whether the suit was unfounded favored granting attorney fees to the defendants on the cybersquatting claim.

More…

Filed in Attorney Fee Awards, Cybersquatting, Lanham Act | | Comments (0) »

Analysis of Bilski v. Kappos Decision

30-Jun-10

A brief summary of the Supreme Court’s June 28, 2010 decision in Bilski v. Kappos is posted HERE. You can access the complete opinions HERE.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0) »

DJ Cohn Denies Defendant Attorney’s Fees in Patent Case

28-Jun-10

Intellectual Science & Technology, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., Case No. 06-10406, 2010 BL 98697 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2010).

Sony Electronics, Inc. (Sony) was granted summary judgment in a patent infringement case filed against it by Intellectual Science & Technology Inc. (Intellectual). Sony’s application for attorney’s fees was stayed pending resolution of the appeal to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the Court’s grant in December, 2009. District Judge Avern Cohn then denied the application for attorney’s fees, finding no reason to disturb the American rule that requires each party to pay its attorneys. The court found that under 28 U.S.C. 1927, and under the inherent authority of the court, the request was frivolous. Sony abandoned its request under Rule 11 grounds, and its case did not meet the requirements for an award of fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. Sony did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Intellectual’s claim of infringement was an exceptional case. Instead, the case was determined to be based on a reasonable assessment of its chances. The court noted that the statutory authority to award attorney fees was intended to “prevent gross injustice,” not to shift the economic balance against the unsuccessful plaintiff. See Mach. Corp. of Am. v. Gullfiber AB, 774 F.2d 467, 472 (Fed. Cir. 1985). More…

Filed in Attorney Fee Awards, Patent, Summary Judgment | Tagged , , , | Comments (0) »

IP Cases Filed Week of June 21, 2010

26-Jun-10

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Freeland Health And Fitness, LLC, Case No. 1:10-cv-12503-TLL-CEB, filed on June 25, 2010. Plaintiff alleges that defendant infringes its trademark by using the name “Saginaw 24 Hour Fitness.” Plaintiff is represented by Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton, PLC.

FieldTurf USA, Inc. v. Astroturf, LLC, Case No. 2:10-cv-12492-SJM-MJH, filed on June 23, 2010. FieldTurf alleges that Astroturf infringes its patents covering synthetic turf products, including U.S. Patent No. 6,723,412 (Prvost, Apr. 20, 2004), entitled “Synthetic turf,” by selling its “GameDay” artificial turf products. Fieldturf is represented by Chicago’s Factor & Lake Ltd.

Just Intellectuals, PLLC v. Clorox Co., Case No. 2:10-cv-12415-SFC-MJH, filed on June 21, 2010. Plaintiff filed this qui tam action alleging that Clorox is liable under 35 U.S.C. § 292 for false marking relating to Clorox’s BRITA brand pitcher filter cartridges. Just Intellectuals, PLLC is represented by Kristy J. Downing, Esq.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0) »