Category: Trademark Infringement

Philadelphia Commercial Lawyers: Tyson Foods Trademark Infringement Case

By ,

A federal judge has ruled against Pittsburgh-based sausage company Parks LLC in the company’s trademark infringement and false advertising case against Tyson Foods Inc. Parks brought the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over claims that Tyson’s use of the phrase “Park’s Finest” to describe a line of their Ball Park hot dogs was deceptive and infringed upon Parks’ trademark name.

Parks LLC is owned by former running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers and Hall of Famer, Franco Harris, and Lydell Mitchell, former running back for the Baltimore Colts. The brand has long been recognized for its television commercials that feature a boy begging his mother for “more Parks’ sausages Mom… please.”

In 2014, Tyson Foods Inc and Hillshire Brands Company, co-owners of the “Ball Park” trademark, launched a new line of premium hotdogs under the name “Park’s Finest.” Parks LLC later filed a lawsuit against the companies, charging them with false advertising, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution in violation with the Lanham Act.

The judge ultimately decided in favor of the defendants on all counts, citing Parks’ inability to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Tyson violated the law. In regards to the false advertising charge, the judge concluded that Tyson’s use of “Park’s Finest” was not used to confuse or deceive consumers, but rather functioned as a reference to their Ball Park brand. Furthermore, Parks was unable to show that a substantial number of consumers were actually deceived by the phrase.

Parks’ similarly failed in its attempt to prove trademark infringement. Although Parks did at one time hold federal trademark registrations, those registrations expired sometime between 2003 and 2011. To succeed on a claim of trademark infringement, the company would have to prove that the name “Parks” possesses a secondary meaning. The existence of a secondary meaning is based on a number of factors that lead to buyer association, including: the size of the company; the extent of sales and advertising; the number of customers; the number of sales made under the mark; and actual confusion. The judge concluded that Parks could not prove trademark infringement under those standards.

Philadelphia Commercial Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Trademark Litigation Cases

For more information about Lanham Act trademark laws and how they relate to your business, call the Philadelphia business litigation lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today. Our experienced and highly skilled business lawyers handle all types of business litigation. Call 215-574-0600 to arrange a consultation or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyer: Monster Energy Settles Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

By ,

Monster Beverage Corp. (Monster) recently settled a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the Beastie Boys. The claim arose after Monster released a four-minute long commercial for a Canadian snowboarding competition. The video featured five Beastie Boys’ tracks without the group’s permission. The Beastie Boys then filed a lawsuit, asserting that the commercial use of their songs lead the public to think that they had endorsed the company’s energy drink, Monster Energy, when they did not.

The band won the lawsuit on its merits and were subsequently awarded $1.7 million plus an additional $667,000 in legal fees. However, Monster appealed on grounds that the award was unreasonably high. The Beastie Boys settled the case with Monster before the appeal was adjudicated for an undisclosed amount.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Victims of Copyright Infringement

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our experienced team of Philadelphia business litigation lawyers handle all types of legal matters, including claims of trademark and copyright infringement. If you believe your business is the victim of copyright infringement, contact us at 215-574-0600 or fill out our online contact form today.

 

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Rival Continuing to Sell Infringing Products

By ,

Last year, Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. (TAOS), a company that makes light sensors used in iPhones and other products, was awarded $88.7 million after a jury found that its competitor had infringed upon its patent and misappropriated trade secrets. The competitor, Intersil, continues to deny infringement, according to TAOS. TAOS is now seeking a permanent injunction against Intersil.

Back in November of 2008, TAOS first sued Intersil, alleging that it unlawfully used confidential information disclosed during merger or acquisition negotiations. According to allegations in the lawsuit, Intersil wanted to either secure a license from TAOS or acquire the company. When TAOS failed to accept their offer, Intersil attempted to destroy the company in order to take the full market share.

In March of 2015, a jury found that Intersil used TAOS’ patented technology for dual-diode ambient light sensors without consent and misappropriated trade secrets in order to gain a competitive advantage. TAOS was awarded $48.7 million in disgorgement, $12 million in royalties, $8 million in lost profits and $20 million in punitive damages. Only about $73,000 was awarded for patent infringement.

Now, TAOS is seeking to permanently enjoin Intersil from marketing and selling the dual-diode technology. Four products that TAOS holds patents for are the focus of the dispute. TAOS is also seeking to recover attorneys’ fees.

According to one of TAOS’s lawyers, Intersil continues to sell products that the jury determined were infringing upon their client’s patent and is now directly competing with TAOS by selling the stolen technology.

Intersil continues to deny these claims, and argues that the jury verdict should be set aside. Intersil insists that if a judgment is entered, the company should not be required to stop making the product, but rather, should be asked to pay a royalty to TAOS for use of the patented technology. Intersil’s position is that even though the jury found that it willfully misappropriated trade secrets, this behavior is somewhat common.

The judge has requested that the parties continue to mediate the dispute in order to attempt to negotiate a license and royalty agreement. If the parties choose not to participate in the mediation, the judge will issue a ruling.

Philadelphia Trademark Infringement Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Businesses Victimized By Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

If you are the owner of a valid trademark or patent that is being used by another individual or business without your permission, Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help. With offices conveniently located in Center City Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Philadelphia and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out our online contact form today.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Copyright Claims and Unauthorized Copying of Copyrights

By ,

In order to have a claim for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must show: (1) that they have a valid copyright and (2) that the original elements of their work were copied, without their authorization. To file a claim under the Federal Copyright Act, federal registration must first be acquired.  A plaintiff can satisfy the first element, a valid copyright, by showing that the work is original and that they are the author of the work or by producing their federal copyright certificate if they already federally registered their copyright.

Unauthorized copying can be shown with direct evidence of copying or indirect evidence of copying.  When using indirect evidence of copying the plaintiff must show that the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s work and that the works are substantially similar.  Substantial similarity may be shown by lay witness testimony or expert witness testimony.  Additionally, the aspects of the works that are substantially similar must be protectable elements of the work.  The author’s express of their idea is protectable but the actual idea or theme itself is not protectable.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Trademark Lawyers: Under Armour Trademark Infringement

By ,

Athletic apparel giant, Under Armour, filed a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit against Armor & Glory, LLC, a competitor athletic apparel company. In the lawsuit, Under Armour claimed that Armor & Glory’s products and promotions were similar to Under Armour, and that the two brands could be mistaken for one another.

The lawsuit specifically states that the Armor & Glory logo could “dilute the distinctiveness” of the famous Under Armour logo. The company filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, seeking damages and requesting that the court prevent further use of the Armor & Glory name.  The case has not yet been decided.

Philadelphia Trademark Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Victims of Trademark Infringement

Philadelphia trademark lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are extremely knowledgeable in all aspects of trademark law, including trademark infringement. To schedule a consultation with one of our experienced trademark lawyers, call us at 215-574-0600 or submit an online contact form. We serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Craigslist Copyright Lawsuit

By ,

A long-standing case between Craigslist and 3taps has finally been resolved. The two companies came to a settlement agreement for one million dollars that Craigslist will be donating to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) over the next decade. Additionally, 3taps will be shutting down.

Trademark Infringement, Unethical Competition and Breach of Contract

Craigslist sued 3taps, as well as another company, PadMapper, in July 2012, claiming that both companies were guilty of copyright infringement. PadMapper took the data Craigslist had for apartment listings and created its own site that was easier to use, while 3taps took other Craigslist postings and published them on third-party websites. In addition to copyright infringement, PadMapper and 3taps were also accused of infringing on the Craigslist trademark, unethically competing with Craigslist and breaching Craigslist contracts.

Countersuit Filed

In late 2012, 3taps filed a countersuit against Craigslist, opening the door to a legal battle that lasted nearly three years. 3taps countered that Craigslist had effectively created a copyright infringement trap by their practice of selectively obtaining copyright assignments and registrations in some user-generated posts, but failing to inform visitors which posts its own.

The recent settlement fully resolves each lawsuit. The one million dollars that 3taps will pay to Craigslist will help support the EFF, which will receive $100,000 a year for 10 years, and 3taps will no longer be allowed to operate.

Copyright Litigation Trap Questions Remain

There is still debate regarding the question of legality for private enterprises which operate public websites and attempt to exclude certain visitors, while at the same time exposing the excluded visitor to civil and criminal liability through use of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Philadelphia Copyright Infringement Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract and Business Litigation Claims

Certain types of small businesses and websites that source their data from other systems may be exposed to the potential of being targeted in lawsuits filed by the original source company or website. If you are being sued over copyright infringement or are considering filing a lawsuit of your own, our Philadelphia litigation lawyers can help. We can consult on how to avoid trademark litigation and offer legal counsel on how to pursue a trademark violation claim if one is warranted. At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we are skilled in breach of contract and copyright infringement litigation and will pursue your case until we reach a viable outcome or settlement. Please call 215-574-0600 or fill out an online contact form today to schedule your consultation.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers : Significant Trademark Ruling in 9th Circuit

By ,

Amazon, the online marketplace giant, recently lost an important court case. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the company will be subject to an ongoing trademark lawsuit, which was instigated by Amazon’s publishing of competitors’ list prices. A lower court originally ruled in Amazon’s favor in the case.

Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com involves Multi Time Machine (MTM), a watchmaking company that filed suit against Amazon for “confusing search results.” Consumers who search for “MTM Special Ops” on Amazon do not actually see the MTM product they are searching for because Amazon does not sell the product. Instead, the search engine provides a list of competitors’ watches that are sold by Amazon. Consumers may be aware the product they are trying to purchase does not come from MTM, but could also think they are purchasing an MTM product since the search results page displays “MTM Special Ops” at the top of the page.

Ruling Not an Automatic Victory

The ruling does not automatically grant MTM a trademark victory. The case will return to court wherein MTM must prove that Amazon intentionally caused this confusion. A judge from the majority ruling said that a jury should have the opportunity to make the final decision. “A jury could infer that users who are confused by the search results will wonder whether a competitor has acquired MTM or is otherwise affiliated with or approved by MTM,” he said.

A dissenting judge disagreed saying that online consumers are knowledgeable enough to understand the difference. He equated the search engine results to a waitress offering a diner Pepsi because it does not serve Coca Cola.

Philadelphia Trademark Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Trademark Infringement Claims

As technology continues to evolve, laws must also be changed to keep up with technology’s fast pace. Across the nation, trademark law is in flux. If you think that an individual or company has violated your trademark or marketed your product in violation of fair trade laws, contact a Philadelphia trademark lawyer at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today. Please call 215-574-0600 or contact us online to schedule your consultation.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Disparaging Trademarks

By ,

Trademarks are a business asset that help identify a business. Most trademarks promote the business in a positive light. Some trademarks are contested because they are too close to another trademark. Other trademarks can be considered offensive. Trademark applications and contests over trademarks are decided by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB.)

Constitutional Law vs. Trademark Law

The USPTO and TTAB currently decide if a trademark is disparaging based on whether the trademark refers to an identifiable group and whether a substantial part of that group considers the trademark to be offensive. Factors used to decide whether trademarks are disparaging are how a dictionary defines the key words, as well as how and where the trademark will appear.

Offensive or disparaging trademarks raise the issue of whether they are protected by the US Constitution’s Freedom of Speech provision of the First Amendment. Trademark applicants claim that the USPTO and TTAB cannot deny the application even if the trademark is disparaging because the denial violates the First Amendment’s right to free speech. Those who think disparaging trademarks should be denied rely on the federal Lanham Act.

Current Cases

The case of In re McGinley decided the issue in favor of the USPTO and TTAB. The case reasoning was that applicants were still free to use the disparaging words to identify their business – they just could not get an approved trademark for it.

The federal case involving the Asian band relied on In re McGinley to hold that the band could not get a trademark. A dissenting judge in the Asian band case reasoned that it might be time to revisit the In re McGinley decision because recent law has held that commercial speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The federal court overseeing the Asian band case agreed with the dissenting judge and recently decided it would revisit the constitutionality of denying disparaging trademarks.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green handle Intellectual Property Issues

Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus and Green have experience handling intellectual property issues and are knowledgeable in current trademark laws. Our commercial litigation lawyers in Philadelphia have the experience to help businesses overcome the constitutional and legal challenges they often face. Call 215-574-0600 or fill out our online contact form to discuss your intellectual property concerns with an experienced Philadelphia business lawyer today.

Philadelphia Trademark Attorneys: LUKOIL Sues Philadelphia Gas Station

By ,

LUKOIL North America has filed a lawsuit against an Allentown gas station for trademark infringement and trade dress infringement, alleging that the business has been falsely operating as a LUKOIL franchise. The fuel company is seeking to recover damages and attorney fees from defendants R.K. Keystone Mobile Mart Inc., Gurmeet Singh, A Airport Texaco Inc., and Swapnesh Sharma who own and operate a former LUKOIL station at 3575 Airport Road in Allentown, PA.

The suit filed on April 27 states that “To date, defendants have merely removed the LUKOIL sign, and the tear drop, leaving intact the well-known LUKOIL trade dress including the prominent use of the primary colors red and white, as well as the sergeant stripes on the canopy”.

Going further, LUKOIL alleges that the defendants ““have been, and continue to be, infringing the LUKOIL trademarks and trade dress at the Allentown station by falsely selling unbranded motor fuels under the LUKOIL trademarks and distinctive LUKOIL trade dress. Such continuing, knowing and willful infringement creates a likelihood of confusion among the consuming public by deceiving them into believing the defendants’ service station dispenses genuine LUKOIL brand motor fuels and other service station goods and services and that the service station is associated and connected with LUKOIL as an authorized retailer.”

The case will be heard by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Trademark attorneys in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in handing all aspects of business law, including trade mark infringement.  We represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

 

Philadelphia Business Lawyers Discuss Pop Star’s Win in Passing Off Claim

By ,

Another win for pop-star Rihanna, as a UK Court of Appeals upheld an earlier court’s decision to prohibit a T-shirt maker from the unauthorized use of the singer’s image. The original lawsuit, filed by Rihanna in 2012, claimed that fashion retailer, Topshop, misrepresented the celebrity’s endorsement when it began selling t-shirts bearing her image. The shirts were printed with a photograph of Rihanna taken during a live video shoot for one of her albums. The picture was taken by an independent photographer who licensed its use to Topshop, but the singer never gave her consent. The court decided Topshop’s action amounted to “passing off” – illegally exploiting an unregistered trademark.

Generally, aside from privacy issues, there are few laws in the UK that protect celebrities from having their pictures published without their consent, such as there are in the U.S. Celebrities who wish to control the reproduction of their image must rely on some other cause of action, such as a breach of contract, infringement of copyright or, as in Rihanna’s case, passing off.

“Passing off” refers to a misrepresentation of endorsement. Topshop had made considerable efforts to emphasize its relationship with certain pop-stars, and with Rihanna in particular. The company created a contest in 2010 where the prize was a personal shopping appointment with Rihanna at Topshop. They also launched a significant publicity campaign around a visit the star made to the store in early 2012. In regard to the unauthorized t-shirts being sold by Topshop, Rihanna argued that buyers were likely to believe that the product was endorsed by her, and would purchase the shirt based on that false belief. Moreover, she argued that this would be damaging to her goodwill.

Throughout the world, Rihanna is regarded as a fashion icon. Her fashion activities include promoting Gucci and Armani clothing and designing clothes and endorsing products for River Island, as well as some previously authorized goods sold by Topshop. Rihanna’s reputation as a musical artist and style leader has earned her goodwill rights in not only the music industry, but in the fashion world as well. She argued that damage to her goodwill would lead to a decline in sales in her marketing business, and a loss of control over her reputation in the fashion industry. The court agreed and banned Topshop from selling the shirts without informing prospective buyers that the product had not been approved or authorized.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Cases of Intellectual Property and Trademark Infringement

Philadelphia commercial business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have experience handling complex litigation involving rights of publicity, as well as copyright and trademark disputes. Our office is located in Philadelphia and we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. To discuss your case with one of our highly qualified Philadelphia business lawyers, call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online.