Switch sues man for trademark infringement, unlawful domain-name trafficking

By: Yevgeniy Sverdlik
Source: http://www.datacenterdynamics.com

Switch, operator of a large Las Vegas data center campus Super NAP, has filed a lawsuit against a Canadian citizen, charging him with trademark infringement, business news publication Vegas Inc. reported.

Dorian Banks, of Vancouver, registered an Internet domain name Switch.net in October. Banks, CEO of wireless Internet services provider Metrobridge Networks, told Vegas Inc. he had not heard of the plaintiff when he bought the domain name through an auction.

In addition to trademark infringement charges, Switch said in its lawsuit filed in a federal court in Las Vegas that Banks wrongfully attempted to profit from ownership of the domain by offering to sell it to the data center provider as soon as he bought it.

Switch charged that Banks’ offer to sell the domain to the company for about US$3,700 violated the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by having had "bad faith intent to profit from registering, trafficking in or using a domain name or mark that is either identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark,” according to Vegas Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Switch said Banks threatened to sell the domain to someone else as the company evaluated his initial offer if it did not take the offer quickly.

Switch asked the court to issue a restraining order on Banks to prevent him from using its names and trademarks. The company also asked the domain-name registrar to transfer ownership of the Switch.net name to the company.

Banks denied the allegations, saying he approached Switch in Las Vegas after a Swiss company, also called Switch, objected to his acquisition of the name. He told Vegas Inc. that he offered to sell the domain to the Las Vegas company for the same amount he paid for it at the auction so that it could try and resolve the dispute with the Swiss organization.


Source: http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/focus/archive/2011/11/switch-sues-man-for-trademark-infringement,-unlawful-domain-name-trafficking

Las Vegas Switch data center in trademark dispute

By: Steve Green
Source: http://www.vegasinc.com


Switch Communications Group LLC, operator of a big data center in Las Vegas, sued a Canadian man on Wednesday in what it calls a trademark dispute.

Switch charged in the suit that Dorian Banks in Vancouver, British Columbia, infringed on Switch’s trademarks when Banks registered the switch.net Internet domain name last month.

Switch Communications Group said in the lawsuit it operates the "world’s most powerful data center and technology ecosystems" and has a website at switchnap.com.

Besides the trademark claim, the lawsuit also alleges that Banks violated the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act because Banks had a "bad faith intent to profit from registering, trafficking in or using a domain name or mark that is either identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark" or a famous mark.

Switch charged in the lawsuit that after registering the switch.net name on Oct. 15, Banks contacted the Las Vegas Switch company and offered to sell it the domain name for about $3,700.

"While plaintiff evaluated the offer to negotiate the purchase of the domain name, defendant threatened to sell the domain name to another entity if plaintiff did not hurry and open escrow to buy the domain name," charged the lawsuit filed in federal court in Las Vegas by attorneys at the Las Vegas office of the law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Switch in the suit asks the court for a restraining order requiring Banks to stop using Switch Communications’ names and trademarks and that the domain name registrar transfer the switch.net name to Switch Communications.

Banks, in an interview, denied the allegations of trademark infringement and cybersquatting.

Banks said he is CEO of Metrobridge Networks International Inc., a wireless Internet provider, http://www.metrobridge.com/index.asp and that he had never heard of the Las Vegas company when he bought the switch.net name at an auction.

He said the switch.net domain name was locked down after the auction because of a protest by a third company in Switzerland called SWITCH http://www.switch.ch/, which offers services to Swiss universities and Internet users.

Banks said that after the Swiss company objected to his registration of the switch.net name, he offered to sell it to the Las Vegas company for what he paid for it.

That way, he said, the Las Vegas company could try to gain control of the name and he could quit worrying about the dispute.

Asked about being branded in a lawsuit as a trademark infringer and cybersquatter, Banks said: "It really bothers me."


Source: http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/nov/09/las-vegas-switch-data-center-trademark-dispute/

Small Software Company Secures $10 Million Patent Infringement Win Against Internet Giant AOL

By: Stone and Magnanini LLP
Source: http://www.sacbee.com

SHORT HILLS, N.J., Nov. 9, 2011 -- /PRNewswire/ --  In a verdict that could have significant implications for the Internet software industry, a federal court jury in Central Islip, N.Y. found AOL liable for infringing the patent of BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc., a Long Island Internet software company.  The jury also found that BASCOM's patent, which covers remote filtering of adult or other inappropriate content, among other things, is valid and enforceable. The jury awarded BASCOM $10 million dollars in damages as a royalty for AOL's infringement. 

BASCOM has been providing schools and other educational organizations with Internet filtering solutions since 1996.  Peter Cirasole, President of BASCOM, testified during the trial that he had tried to negotiate licenses for the patent with software and computer industry giants, but that he was rebuffed because those companies believed he would not have the wherewithal to enforce the patent. Other companies have entered into licenses with BASCOM that recognize BASCOM's filtering expertise and deployed BASCOM's filtering software in schools that subscribe to Internet services.

"We are very gratified that the Jury finally gave the justice to BASCOM that it was unable to obtain outside the courtroom," said BASCOM's lead trial counsel, David Stone of Stone and Magnanini LLP.  Stone added, "now that we've established that the patent is valid, we expect other companies that are using this type of filtering technology to respect the validity of BASCOM's patent." 

Working alongside Mr. Stone at trial were associates Jason Spiro and Carolyn Rendell.  Stone & Magnanini is a law firm specializing in complex litigation and trial work with offices in New York City and Short Hills, N.J. Serving as co-trial counsel on the case were Michael Underhill and Eric Maurer of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.  Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, based in New York City, has offices strategically located throughout the United States and has tried numerous complex, high profile global matters.


Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/09/4042022/small-software-company-secures.html#ixzz1dICmdjBG

Groupon, Apple, Adidas, Amazon, Google: Intellectual Property

By: Victoria Slind-Flor
Source: http://www.businessweek.com


(This is a daily report on global news about patents, trademarks, copyright and other intellectual property topics.)

Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Groupon Inc., the company that provides daily deal coupons, was sued for infringement by a California patent holder.

Mobile Commerce Framework Inc., of Mission Viejo, California, accused Chicago-based Groupon of infringing patent 7,693,752. This patent, which was issued in April 2010, covers “a subscription-based system for providing commerce information for one or more mobile devices for one or more merchants,” according to the patent document.

According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of patent ownership-changes, Mobile Commerce Framework acquired its interest in the patent in March, one month before the patent actually was issued.

Groupon is the third company Mobile Commerce has sued for infringing this patent. In August an infringement suit was filed against Foursquare Labs Inc. of New York. Mobile Commerce also filed a patent infringement suit against San Francisco’s Yelp Inc. user-review and local-search service.

In the suit against Groupon, Mobile Commerce said a variety of Groupon products, including apps for Apple Inc.’s iPad and Research in Motion Ltd.’s Blackberry infringe the patent. The California company claims it has suffered “irreparable injury” as the result of Groupon’s actions.

It asked the court to bar further infringement, and to order Groupon to withdraw and destroy all allegedly infringing products. Additionally, the company asked for awards of money damages, and interest on those damages.

Neither Groupon nor Yelp responded immediately to an e- mailed request for comment. Foursquare responded to its suit with a May 13 filing in which it denied infringing the patent and argued that the patent was invalid and unenforceable.

Mobile Commerce is represented by Jonathan Hangartner of X- Patents APC of La Jolla, California.

The suit against Groupon is Mobile Commerce Framework Inc. v. Groupon Inc., 3:11-cv-02586-MMA-WMC, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego).

The suit against Yelp is Mobile Commerce Framework Inc. v. Yelp Inc., 3:11-cv-02589-MMA-MDD, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego).

The suit against Foursquare is Mobile Commerce Framework Inc., v. Foursquare Labs Inc., 3:11-cv-00481-BEN-BLM, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego).

Jobs Listed as Inventor on Two New U.S. Patents For Apple

Steve Jobs’ influence continues to be felt at Apple Inc., the Cupertino, California-based company he founded.

He is one of the named inventors on two new patents issued yesterday to Apple, according to the new-patent database of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Jobs, who died of pancreatic cancer Oct. 5, is one of 15 inventors named on each patent.

The company has become best known in recent years for its iPhone and iPad. Both patents -- D648,333 and D648,334 -- are design patents for laptop computers.

Applications for the two patents were filed in January and June, respectively. Typically design patents are issued much more rapidly than others, which often take years to move through the patent office.

Trademark

Adidas, Pacific Brands Take Shoe-Stripe Trademark Case to Court

Adidas AG and Pacific Brands Ltd. are facing off in court in Australia over a stripe design for athletic shoes, Australia’s Herald Sun reported.

Herzogenaurach, Germany-based Adidas has told Australia’s federal court that Pacific Brands was selling knockoff athletic shoes with four stripes that infringed on the German company’s three-stripe design, according to the Herald Sun.

Even though Pacific Brands is no longer distributing the alleged copies, Adidas said it was going ahead with the suit to discourage other makers of knockoffs, the Herald Sun reported.

Pacific Brands, based in Hawthorn, Australia, was distributing the shoes to which Adidas objected through small outlets, according to the newspaper.

Schools Get ‘.XXX’ Domains to Bar Pornographers’ Use of Marks

In efforts to protect their trademarks, universities have begun registering their websites with the new “.xxx” suffix intended for sexually explicit content, United Press International reported.

The domain names cost about $200, “so I don’t see any reason not to do it,” said Greg Jackson, vice president for policy and analysis at Educause, an organization that promotes the use of technology in higher education, according to UPI.

The universities are taking the step to prevent others from using their trademarks in the adult-content world, UPI reported.

Two of the schools that have already registered their marks with the “.xxx” domain suffix are the University of Missouri and Washington University, according to UPI.

Two Competing ‘Rally Squirrel’ Trademark Applications Filed

Eight days before the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team won the World Series Oct. 28, a Missouri company submitted an application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register “Rally Squirrels” as a trademark. A second application submitted by a different party was filed two days after the final game.

The original “rally squirrel” got his name after he ran across home plate during a playoff game between the Cardinals and the Philadelphia Phillies. The squirrel became a focus for fan enthusiasms during the World Series, with a local hospital raising more than $200,000 through its sale of Rally Squirrel t- shirts and other souvenir goods, KDSL television reported on its website.

According to the patent office database, PBR Industries of Fenton, Missouri, is seeking the mark for promotional products, including clothing, drinkware, novelty products, office supplies and sporting goods. The PBR application doesn’t state a date of first use of the term.

Two days after the big win, a Florida resident filed an application for the same mark. Sean Patrick Sullivan of Delray Beach, Florida, said he would use the mark on wearable garments. He claimed he first used it on Oct. 12.

When parties are competing for the same trademark, the date of first use -- namely when merchandise bearing the mark is first shipped -- is important. If that date can be proven, it will give the applicant with the earliest date the more senior rights to the trademark.

Copyright

Amazon’s Kindle Unit Gave Away Novel for Free, Writer Complains

Amazon.com Inc. gave away more than 5,000 copies of a Washington D.C.-based writer’s self-published book for free, the writer claimed.

James Crawford is the author of “Blood Soaked & Contagious,” a zombie-themed novel. He said in a blog posting that he signed up to publish digital copies of his book through Seattle-based Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing. The book was to be sold for $5.99 per download.

According to his contract with Amazon, if the company discovers the book for sale anywhere else at a lower price, it can match that price if it chooses to, Crawford said.

He had listed a teaser version of the first three chapters of the book for free through Barnes & Noble Inc.’s website, and found that Kindle Direct Publishing mistakenly considered this to be the entire novel. So his price on the Amazon site had “magically been discounted 100 percent,” and before he removed the book for sale through the Amazon website, Kindle “has given away 5,104 copies of the book for free,” Crawford said.

He removed the book from the Amazon listing and contacted the company to complain.

In his blog Crawford posted a response letter sent to him by Kindle Direct Publishing on Oct. 7. In that letter Amazon says that it can’t pay any royalties on sales that took place when the book was listed for $0 on the website. Amazon said that if Crawford resubmitted the book, the price will be corrected.

When accessed yesterday, the Amazon.com website listed Crawford’s book for $5.99 in an edition for the company’s Kindle electronic reader.

Google Sent DMCA Takedown Notice Over Scarlett Johansson Photos

Actress Scarlett Johansson sent Google Inc. a letter demanding the removal of nude photos of herself.

The letter, sent on Johansson’s behalf by Lavely & Singer PC of Los Angeles, specifies that even though the photos were registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, they aren’t authorized for publication.

Johansson demanded their removal under the “takedown” provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The photos, which allegedly appeared on two different websites, are “copies of highly personal and private photographs which capture our client self-posing in her own home in a state of undress and/or topless,” the firm said in the letter.

The letter was posted on the Chilling Effects website, which tracks takedown requests made under the DMCA. The site is a joint project of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.

Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage

AU Optronics, TSMC Call For Taiwan Law Over Trade Secret Theft

AU Optronics Corp. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. are among the Taiwanese companies asking for a new law against industrial espionage, Agence France Presse reported.

The companies told Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-Jeou a new law is needed in the wake of increasing theft of trade secrets in their country, according to AFP.

The high tech companies told the president that presently offenders are prosecuted for violating laws against breach of trust and embezzlement and penalties associated with those violations aren’t severe enough to halt the growing problem, AFP reported.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-09/groupon-apple-adidas-amazon-google-intellectual-property.html

McDermott Wins Victory for Extreme Networks in High-Profile Patent Infringement Case

By: Press Release
Source: http://www.marketwatch.com


MENLO PARK, Calif., Nov 08, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- International law firm McDermott Will & Emery LLP achieved a victory for its client Extreme Networks, Inc. EXTR +0.02% in a high-profile patent infringement case.

Specifically, McDermott successfully persuaded the jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin to find in favor of Extreme Networks. The jury found no infringement by Extreme Networks for any of the dozen accused products in the case, Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc.

"We are delighted by this win for our client, Extreme Networks, which hopefully puts an end to years' worth of meritless litigation in Wisconsin," said David H. Dolkas, an Intellectual Property partner at McDermott Will & Emery who served as lead counsel in the trial. "Charges of patent infringement against a large product family can be particularly harmful to any company's bottom line. We are pleased that the McDermott team was able to marshal the resources necessary to make sophisticated and often complex legal arguments that won the day. McDermott's IP Litigation practice prides itself on its ability to litigate such cases, and to successfully defend our clients against infringement claims."

The case dates from April 2005, when Enterasys Networks sued Extreme Networks for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Extreme Networks then filed suit against Enterasys in 2007 in the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging patent infringement relating to policy-based quality of service in computer networks. Enterasys Networks denied the infringement charges and counterclaimed for infringement of three of its own patents relating to network switches and routers.

Since that time, McDermott secured a series of infringement wins for Extreme Networks, which were then appealed by Enterasys Networks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 30, 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed the findings of the Western District of Wisconsin's prior judgment on a jury verdict in Extreme Networks favor upholding the jury's finding that Enterasys Networks infringed three of Extreme Networks patents and that the patents are valid. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for jury trial on one of Enterasys Networks patents, which resulted in last week's victory.

Extreme Networks of Santa Clara, Calif., founded in 1996, is a publicly traded company that designs networks for the mobile world. From the converged mobile edge of enterprises to virtualized clouds, and from data centers to global carrier networks that backhaul mobile traffic, Extreme Networks' extensible services architecture helps set a foundation for mobility, user awareness and faster performance to empower people and machines to connect and move seamlessly.

In addition to Mr. Dolkas, the McDermott trial team included Intellectual Property Litigation partners Margaret Duncan, David Larson, and Keith Stolte. Intellectual Property partner Terrence McMahon, who has a 10-year relationship with Extreme Networks, was intimately involved in the overall trial strategy and in supporting the team in Madison, Wisconsin. Also assisting the team were associate Ryan Phelan and paralegals Jamie Berger and Gayle Dissen.

With 185 attorneys around the world, McDermott's Intellectual Property practice is renowned for its broad trial, appellate and prosecution experience. More than 125 members of McDermott's intellectual property team hold technical and/or scientific degrees and more than 100 are registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). McDermott's Intellectual Property practice includes numerous lawyers with valuable industry experience as well as former USPTO examiners and petition specialists.


Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mcdermott-wins-victory-for-extreme-networks-in-high-profile-patent-infringement-case-2011-11-08

New York Times vs. Huffington Post: Round Two

By: John Koblin
Source: http://www.wwd.com

The New York Times has upped the ante in its dispute with The Huffington Post over Lisa Belkin’s Parentlode blog.

Times Co. lawyers filed a lawsuit suit against Huffington Post parent company AOL on Friday, claiming that the Parentlode blog name constitutes trademark infringement.

As WWD first reported, the Times sent a cease-and-desist letter over the blog’s name and the use of a “motherlode” tag in the Parentlode’s opening post on Oct. 24. Earlier that same day, The Huffington Post launched Parentlode, which is written by Belkin, the longtime Times writer who founded nytimes.com’s Motherlode blog three years earlier. Belkin left the Times for HuffPo in October.

According to the Times’ complaint, AOL lawyers responded to the cease-and-desist on Oct. 27 and argued that the “Parentlode trademark is not likely to cause confusion with the NYTCo’s Motherlode trademark.” The Huffington Post did remove the “motherlode” tags, but that is as far as AOL and The Huffington Post would go, wrote Times lawyers.

The Times suit argues that the name Parentlode “has no particular meaning and could not have been selected for any reason but to create an association with NYTCo’s established Motherlode trademark.” They also said that the name Parentlode is a “deliberate attempt to mislead readers into mistakenly believing it was the same blog, albeit with a slightly different name and location.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in New York but AOL has not yet been served.

A Huffington Post spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.


Source: http://www.wwd.com/media-news/fashion-memopad/new-york-times-vs-huffington-post-round-two-5355619

VirnetX Files Patent-Infringement Complaint Against Apple

By: Antone Gonsalves
Source: http://www.crn.com


Internet security company VirnetX Holding has filed a second patent-infringement complaint against Apple, seeking to bar the computer maker from importing products into the U.S.

The latest complaint is with the U.S. International Trade Commission and follows by a few days a lawsuit Zephyr Cove, Nev.-based VirnetX filed in federal court in Tyler, Texas. Both complaints stem from VirnetX's patent technology for implementing a secure link between computers and a virtual private network.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted the patent (No. 8,051,181) Nov. 1. Shortly thereafter, VirnetX sued Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple, alleging patent infringement.

VirnetX said Monday that it filed the latest complaint with the Trade Commission Nov. 4, seeking an order barring Apple from importing infringing Apple products into the U.S. and from selling those products already in the country. The products include the latest iPhone, iPads, iPods and Mac computers.

Apple was not immediately available for comment.

"We believe that the ITC plays a valuable role in protecting U.S. industries and in preventing unfair trade practices," Kendall Larsen, VirnetX chief executive and president, said in a statement. "We look forward to the ITC vindicating our substantial and significant efforts to innovate."

Companies in patent disputes typically file USITC complaints to bar importation of products. Filing a complaint does not mean the allegations have merit and the commission has to agree to open an investigation. Once a probe is launched, the commission sets a target date for completion of 45 days. Rulings take effect within 60 days, unless overruled by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, a government agency that develops and recommends trade policy to the president.


Source: http://www.crn.com/news/security/231902501/virnetx-files-patent-infringement-complaint-against-apple.htm;jsessionid=92So97ofLpsdfA6N91Q8rg**.ecappj01

Interim relief for Cadbury in trademark infringement case

By:Hary M. Pillai
Source: http://www.lawetalnews.com


Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte interim injunction against a local garment manufacturer – Lodha Garments preventing them from using the trademark Cadbury, in a suit filed by one of the world’s largest confectionary company, Cadbury UK Ltd and its Indian subsidiary Cadbury India Ltd, alleging infringement of their world renowned trade mark “Cadbury” by the defendant company.

Justice Manmohan Singh before whose bench the matter was listed felt that prima facie a strong case was made out that the trade mark of the plaintiffs as well as their reputation was being used by the defendant company to pass off their goods as those of the plaintiffs.

The interim injunction shall be operational till the next date of hearing which is 7 January 2012.
In their suit, Kraft Foods promoted Cadbury UK Ltd and its Indian subsidiary had accused Lodha Garments of adopting a deceptively identical name to promote its product as that of the foreign firm and thus mislead consumers.


Source: http://www.lawetalnews.com/post.php?id=138

Motorola Wins Lawsuit Against Apple

By: The Chosunilbo
Source: http://english.chosun.com


A German court on Friday sided with mobile phone maker Motorola in a patent infringement suit and motion to ban the sale of Apple's iPhones and iPads.

But Apple expects the ruling will not have an immediate impact on the sales of the gadgets in the European country. "This is a procedural issue and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It does not affect our ability to do business or sell products in Germany at this time," the company said in a statement. The ruling apparently only concerns parent company Apple Inc., as opposed to Apple Germany, which actually sells the company's products in the country.

Germany's Post Patents, which specializes in patents news, reported Saturday that a court in Mannheim ruled in favor of Motorola, which accused Apple of infringing two of its communications technologies. The court ruled Apple headquarters must halt sales in Germany and compensate Motorola for patent infringements committed since 2003. Motorola pledged to protect its assets and said the ruling confirms the widespread use of its technologies in mobile communications.

Samsung, which is engaged in worldwide court battles with Apple, expects the latest German ruling to work in its favor. Samsung is using patented communications technologies as its key weapon against Apple but has so far lost several cases for copying Apple's designs.

The U.S. company is fighting back using the so-called "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) standard that stipulates that if a particular patent is essential to manufacturing a device, a manufacturer without rights to the patent can use the technology and pay reasonable royalties.

Apple reasons that it cannot manufacture its smartphones without using Samsung's patented technologies and therefore the Korean company cannot seek a motion to ban their sale.

Motorola won its legal battle against Apple by using communications patents. Samsung too has filed a suit against Apple in Mannheim claiming the U.S. company infringed upon its communications patents. A Samsung spokesman said the FRAND defense will not work against his firm.

Source: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/11/07/2011110701093.html

National Grange Sues New York City Based Agri-Business for Trademark Infringement

By: AG Weelely
Source: http://www.agweekly.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The National Grange today filed suit against a New York City based business that has used the Grange name without authorization.

The National Grange, the nation's oldest nonprofit agriculture and rural public interest organization, filed a complaint against Brooklyn Grange, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The move comes after Brooklyn Grange LLC continued unauthorized use and expansion of the National Grange's famous trademark GRANGE.

National Grange President Ed Luttrell said Tuesday that while the Grange did not initially seek to file suit, the move was necessary in order to protect the Grange's name and reputation.

"Filing a lawsuit in federal court is always a last resort, only used when all other attempts to resolve a conflict have failed. However, in order to protect the National Grange's exclusive rights to its famous and well known GRANGE trademark, the National Grange has a duty to prevent unauthorized use of its trademarks," Luttrell said.

Luttrell said this filing comes after talks between the two organizations failed.
 

"We have sought to engage the owners of Brooklyn Grange LLC in constructive dialogue for nearly 18 months, but we have been continually rebuffed," Luttrell said. "We've tried to explain our concerns with their unauthorized and expanding commercial use of our trademark to no avail."

The National Grange is the owner of the U.S. Trademark for the word GRANGE. The National Grange also owns the trademarks NATIONAL GRANGE; THE GRANGE FOUNDATION; NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE ORDER OF PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY; and the image of the seven sided GRANGE LOGO.

Dec. 4, 1867 to promote family farmers and agricultural interests, and first began using the GRANGE Trademark in 1876. It has long used the GRANGE Trademarks in the United States in connection with a variety of goods and services related to fresh and prepared foods and meal services. Commercial sales of food and meal-related services by local Grange chapters are used as fundraising programs that are re-invested in local Grange chapters to further the organization's non-profit, community service and agricultural education missions.
 

Today the National Grange's more than 162,000 members provide a variety of volunteer based, as well as commercial, goods and services to families and communities, through an extensive network of more than 2,500 state, county and local Grange chapters across America.

Brooklyn Grange LLC, located in Long Island City, N.Y., in Queens, is a recently formed, privately owned, for-profit, commercial agribusiness with business operations in the New York City area.

Brooklyn Grange LLC's agribusiness operations include the production and sales of produce, eggs and apiary products grown at their 80,000 square feet of rented space. These products are sold to commercial restaurants and other food service establishments in the New York City area and directly to the public via a network of commercial farmers markets. Brooklyn Grange also recently expanded their business to provide occasional prepared meals and alcoholic beverage services to the public at the site of their main production facility.

Luttrell reaffirmed the commitment of the National Grange to preventing unauthorized use of the Grange name and trademarks, saying, "We are committed to defending our GRANGE trademark against unauthorized, opportunistic usage by for-profit companies, like Brooklyn Grange LLC, in order to preserve the goodwill associated with the trademark GRANGE primarily for the benefit of, and use by, our 2,700 local Grange chapters."

Source: http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2011/11/04/news/ag_news/news69.txt

Nintendo Stomps Motiva's Patent Infringement Claims

By: Zachary Knight
Source: www.techdirt.com
Businessweek is reporting that Nintendo has won a patent infringement case brought by Motiva. Back in November 2008, Motiva filed a patent infringement suit, via the ITC loophole against Nintendo over its 7,292,151 patent for "Human Movement Measurement System" filed in June 2005 and granted in November 2007. Just this week the ITC ruled that Nintendo's Wii and Wii remote did not infringe on Motiva's patent and will not be blocked from import into the US. The judge on the case found that Motiva had not established a market behind its invention which is necessary to win an ITC case. The case still needs to be reviewed by the full six-member commission of the ITC, but Nintendo remains confident that they will also rule in Nintendo's favor -- which seems likely, since the commission frequently follows such rulings by ITC judges

This case has a couple of similarities to the two recent patent suits brought against Nintendo. Much like those patent suits, Motiva's involved a patent that was filed for the same year Nintendo introduced the Wii and the Wii Remote to the world. As with the UltimatePointer suit, Motiva does not have a product on the market, as can be seen by the lack of any product details on Motiva's website -- which, again, was fatal for the case, since the ITC cases (unlike federal court cases) do require some actual products. It's good to see the ITC recognize this case made little sense, and hopefully it bodes well for Nintendo's other cases brought by patent holders. However, just the fact that it keeps getting hit with questionable patent suits again should raise questions about the state of the patent system today.

Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111103/07412616620/nintendo-stomps-motivas-patent-infringement-claims.shtml

Seacrets Alleges Trademark Infringement In Civil Suit

By: Shawn J. Soper
Source: http://www.mdcoastdispatch.com

OCEAN CITY -- After years of claims, counterclaims and pre-trial motions, the multi-million dollar trademark infringement civil trial between a popular Ocean City nightclub complex and a corporation and its subsidiaries began in earnest this week.

The suit involves O.C. Seacrets, the corporation that owns and operates the popular Seacrets nightclub and restaurant complex over the three-block section of the bayfront in Ocean City, and the Coryn Corporation and its subsidiaries, which has since opened nine resort destinations in Jamaica, Mexico and the Dominican Republic operating under the name “Secrets.”

O.C. Seacrets is claiming the Coryn group’s use of “Secrets” is infringing on its trademark and goodwill and creating confusion for consumers.

While the exact amount being sought by O.C. Seacrets is not entirely clear, it is likely several million dollars, and a source close to the situation said this week the final total could approach $100 million if O.C. Seacrets is successful in the case. O.C. Seacrets is seeking all of the profits Coryn and its subsidiaries derived from the use of “Secrets” and is asking the award be tripled. In addition, O.C. Seacrets is seeking all damages it sustained as a result of Coryn’s trademark infringement and unfair competition and is asking that those damages be tripled as well.

In October 1997, O.C. Seacrets successfully registered the trademark “Seacrets” for “restaurant and bar services” at its location along the bay at 49th Street. Over the years, the restaurant and nightclub complex expanded to a three-block area including several bars, restaurants, a nightclub, a hotel, condominiums and its own radio station. According to court documents, the complex draws between 4,000 and 6,000 guests each weekend during the summer season.

In June 2000, Coryn filed an intent-to-use application for the trademark “Secrets” for “resort hotel services” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which officially registered the “Secrets” mark for Coryn in October 2003. In January 2004, O.C. Seacrets petitioned the patent office’s Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB) to cancel Coryn’s “Secrets” mark, arguing that its own mark “Seacrets” covered services closely related to if not identical to “resort hotel services” and there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks.

In August 2008, the TTAB ordered the cancellation of Coryn’s registration because O.C. Seacrets had a priority of usage in its Seacrets mark and there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks. The TTAB also denied Coryn’s petition for partial cancellation or restriction because it found the proposed restriction would not avoid confusion.
In October 2008, Coryn appealed the TTAB’s decision to the U.S. District Court.

In December 2008, O.C. Seacrets counterclaimed for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and Maryland common law. After several claims and counterclaims, the jury trial finally began on Monday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore with opening statements and early testimony and entered its fourth day on Thursday.

According to the opinion of a U.S. District Court judge on a pre-trial motion to determine who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant in terms of who proceeds first in presenting its case, the burden of proof is on O.C. Seacrets.

“O.C. Seacrets has sued Coryn for trademark infringement and unfair competition,” court documents read. “To prevail on these claims, O.C. Seacrets must prove it has a valid protectable trademark and the Coryn is infringing on its mark by creating confusion, or a likelihood thereof, by causing mistake or deceiving as to the attributes of its mark.”

For the O.C. Seacrets team, however, the similarities are irrefutable.

“The ‘Secrets’ mark is confusingly similar to the ‘Seacrets’ mark and name in all respects and use of the ‘Secrets’ mark in connection with Coryn, Coryn II, and AMResorts’ goods and services is likely to cause confusion or mistake as to source of origin or services, thereby misleading and/or deceiving consumers,” O.C. Seacrets’  counterclaim reads. “Seacrets, Coryn, Coryn II and AMResorts use their marks in connection with the same types of related goods and services, and such goods and services are sold to the same class of purchasers.”

O.C. Seacrets is claiming the consuming public, on seeing the “Secrets” name on the destination resorts around the Caribbean, will assume it is affiliated with the original “Seacrets” in Ocean City and vice versa.

O.C. Seacrets also claims consumers familiar with the vacation destinations in Jamaica and elsewhere might assume the Ocean City nightclub complex came later.

“The consuming public, on seeing the ‘Secrets’ mark in association with Coryn’s goods and services, is likely to believe, erroneously, that such goods and services originate from or have some connection, affiliation or sponsorship with Seacrets, which they do not,” the counterclaim reads. “Such confusion, or the potential for reverse confusion, is a source of significant harm and damages to Seacrets and its registered mark and name.”

Source: http://www.mdcoastdispatch.com/articles/2011/11/04/Top-Stories/Seacrets-Alleges-Trademark-Infringement-In-Civil-Suit

Steve Jobs' legal war on Google, Android rages on

By: David Sarno
Source: www.latimes.com
Steve Jobs' legacy at Apple Inc. goes well beyond cool gadgets, a thriving retail chain and a music empire.

He also launched the company's all-out legal war on Google Inc.

In the last months of Jobs' life, Apple unleashed a patent-suit blitzkrieg on its Silicon Valley rival, filing 10 lawsuits in six countries that accuse the Internet search giant of stealing its smartphone and tablet computer technology.

The campaign is rooted in Jobs' belief that Google and mobile device manufacturers that use its Android software copied key design and technology features from Apple's iPhone and iPad.

"I'm willing to go to thermonuclear war on this," Jobs told author Walter Isaacson for his recently released biography. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product."

He then vowed to battle Google until "my last dying breath."

Google and manufacturers using Android are vigorously contesting Apple's claims, which could take years to play out in court. But one thing is certain: There is a lot at stake for the company Jobs built. If it is unable to protect the iPhone's distinctive look and feel, lower-cost competitors emulating its technology could threaten the future of its most profitable products, analysts say.

"Unless they can keep Android at bay, they cannot sustain their incredibly high margins," said Florian Mueller, a patent specialist who has been closely following the disputes. "They'll have to compete with much lower-priced devices with essentially the same features coming out of China and other places."

Alternatively, victories by Apple would enable it to extract hefty ransoms from any phone maker that uses Apple-like technology, or even force its rivals to water down or remove popular features from their smartphones, including screens that respond to multiple finger touches, the graphical display of text messages, and the way users send email and browse the Internet.

That type of technological rollback, analysts and patent attorneys say, could demolish much of Google's recent success in the $160-billion smartphone market, and gain Apple an unparalleled advantage in the industry. The market is growing rapidly as many consumers dump simpler cellphones for the more powerful and versatile smartphones.

"Some of the revelations from the Jobs biography suggest that this is almost a religious war," said Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein Co. The question is whether Apple's battle is based on a rigorous legal analysis of company's patent holdings or part of a personal vendetta by the company's late co-founder, he said.

Apple's aggressive legal attack comes as it is losing ground to its rivals in the smartphone industry. Samsung Corp., whose devices run Google's Android software, dethroned Apple in the most recent quarter to become the world's largest vendor of smartphones, accounting for nearly a quarter of handsets sold last quarter, compared with about 1 in 7 for Apple, according to data from Britain-based Strategy Analytics.

Apple has hired some of the nation's top patent lawyers, including William F. Lee of WilmerHale, who helped win networking chip maker Broadcom Corp. an $891-million infringement settlement against rival Qualcomm Inc., and Harold McElhinny of Morrison & Foerster, who led Pioneer Corp. to a $59-million judgment against Samsung.

In recent weeks, Apple has been successful in temporarily banning sales of Android-powered tablets in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands. The company is now involved in lawsuits covering dozens of patents, some of which date to the technology created for 1990s-era personal computers designed a decade before smartphones were invented.

But what may look like a shotgun approach may actually be a carefully crafted battle plan. Apple is using its initial round of lawsuits to see which of its many patent claims can survive intense legal scrutiny, analysts said. The ones that are successful will become the spearhead of Apple's litigation strategy.

"Once they've found the battle-tested patents that can survive challenges," Mueller said, "they're going to assemble all of them, put the winning team together and enforce them against everyone."

Although Apple's patent war stretches around the globe, the heaviest assault is in the U.S. The company is currently locking horns with Samsung in separate federal lawsuits in Washington, Delaware and Northern California, where Apple's attorneys have demanded court orders preventing Samsung from selling its smartphones and tablets in the U.S.

"This kind of blatant copying is wrong," Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said in a statement. "We need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."

Google has called the patent attacks "bogus," but in August it made a major move to defend itself, announcing the largest acquisition in its 13-year history by paying $12.5 billion in cash for Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., one of the leading Android manufacturers and the holder of 17,000 technology patents that Google could use as ammunition to fend off the lawsuits.

Google allies Samsung and HTC Corp., two major device makers, are also striking back against Apple, filing countersuits that ask courts around the world to ban Apple's iPhone and iPad devices. Each patent case can cost upward of $8 million, according to attorneys and analysts said.

So far, Samsung has had mixed results with its legal fusillade against Apple, with courts in Italy and the Netherlands initially denying its motions to bar sales of Apple's recently released iPhone 4S.

Samsung has denied that its phones infringe Apple's patents, and has instead accused Apple of illicitly using Samsung communications technology in multiple iPhone, iPod and iPad models. The company said it has spent tens of billions developing its own digital technology in recent years, and has amassed nearly 30,000 patents in the U.S. alone.

Apple "continues to violate our intellectual property rights by selling these products," Kim Titus, director of public relations for Samsung Telecommunications America, said in a statement. "The courts will find Apple has indeed been free-riding on our technology."

But many of the technologies that these patents protect are so abstruse or vague that companies may end up running afoul of the law without even knowing it, said Bijal V. Vakil, a partner at law firm White & Case in Palo Alto.

"It's become a virtually unmanageable task to go and see if you have the freedom to operate," he said. "Procedurally it would be impossible to check all of [the valid patents] — even large companies can't afford to do that."

Source: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple-google-20111104,0,1939553.story

Sonics Files Lawsuit Against Arteris for Patent Infringement

By: Press Release
Source: http://www.marketwatch.com

Sonics, Inc.(R), the world's number one supplier of on-chip communications IP, today announced that the company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Arteris, Inc. on November 1, 2011 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The suit alleges that Arteris is willfully infringing on seven of Sonics' technology patents.

After previous business discussions failed to resolve Arteris' unauthorized use of Sonics' intellectual property (IP), the company has taken this next step to further protect its 15-year technology investments and trade secrets.

"Sonics is the world's largest supplier of on-chip network and memory subsystem IP, and has established itself as an industry leader in network-on-chip (NoC) solutions," said Grant Pierce, Sonics President and CEO. "For 15 years, Sonics has earned a proven track record with customers and established a reputation for leadership, technology innovation and design success."

Pierce continues, "We deeply respect this industry that we helped pioneer and advance, and have always honored our commitment to customers around the world to provide proven, reliable IP. Since 1996, we have invested significant resources in research and development -- as reflected in our extensive trademark and patent portfolios -- and remain steadfast in our promise to defend and assert our IP rights to protect these longstanding investments."

Sonics offers SoC designers the broadest array of on-chip communications IP in the world, and maintains an extensive portfolio of more than 110 patent properties to date. Sonics' licensees have shipped more than one billion chips worldwide, and Sonics remains committed to the success of its existing and new customer design initiatives.

A complete copy of the complaint is available at http://www.sonicsinc.com/complaint.htm .

About Sonics Sonics, Inc. is a pioneer of network-on-chip (NoC) technology and today offers SoC designers the largest portfolio of intelligent, on-chip communications solutions for home entertainment, wireless, networking and mobile devices. With a broad array of silicon-proven IP, Sonics helps designers eliminate memory bottlenecks associated with complex, high-speed SoC design, streamline and unify data flows and solve persistent network challenges in embedded systems with multiple cores. As the leading supplier of on-chip communications networks, Sonics has more than 110 patent properties and has enabled its customers to ship more than one billion units worldwide. Founded in 1996, Sonics is headquartered in Milpitas, Calif. with offices worldwide. For more information, please visit www.sonicsinc.com , www.sonicsinc.com/blog , and follow us on twitter at http://twitter.com/sonicsinc .

Sonics, Inc. and the company's logo are registered trademarks of Sonics, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sonics-files-lawsuit-against-arteris-for-patent-infringement-2011-11-02

Litens Automotive Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Shanghai BTE Spare Part Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

By:Litens Automotive Group
Source: http://www.sacbee.com

Litens Automotive Group announces today that it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in Germany against Shanghai BTE Spare Part Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to enforce Litens' patents on automatic belt tensioners.

According to Alex Porat, a lawyer representing Litens, "These tensioners are used in a variety of VW and Audi engines, including 1.4, 1.9 and 2.0 liter turbo-diesel engines from 2002 to 2009. The tensioners are protected by a global intellectual property portfolio, including European Patent # 1 412 659, U.S. Patent Nos. 7 285 065 and 7 611 431, and Chinese Patent # ZL02815059.7."

As part of the lawsuit, Litens requested an injunction which would prevent infringement of Litens patents.

The lawsuit against Shanghai BTE is the result of ongoing worldwide testing and IP enforcement efforts within Litens Group. Litens also cautions consumers that use of automatic belt tensioners that do not meet original design parameters may result in engine failure.

Litens Automotive Group is a full-service designer and manufacturer of engineered power transmission systems and components. An established global leader with over 30 years' experience, Litens has an extensive history of providing innovative engineered solutions for automotive power transmission challenges. Litens continues to develop and deliver new and innovative products for the global automotive industry.

"Given its commitment to innovation, enormous investment in new product development, and the establishment of a broad and deep intellectual property portfolio," stated Rob Laing, Engineering Manager, "Litens will use all legal means at its disposal to stop the manufacture, distribution and sale of infringing products."

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/02/4025339/litens-automotive-files-patent.html