Trademark Infringement | "Sun Mark to appeal Red Bull trademark win"

By : Andy Morton 
Source : http://www.just-drinks.com 
Category : Trademark Infringement 


An independent drinks company that lost a court battle with Red Bull GMBH over a trademark infringement has said it will appeal.

UK-based Sun Mark confirmed to just-drinks late yesterday it will fight Tuesday's (17 July) decision that its Bullet energy drink breached copyright on Red Bull's Bullit brand. The London High Court also said Bullet's slogan “No bull in this can” took unfair advantage of Red Bull's trademark.

Sun Mark declined to comment further, saying it did not want to prejudice future proceedings. In court, its lawyers had claimed Red Bull's Bullit trademark was registered in bad faith as the company had no plans to use it. Red Bull confirmed that the judge dismissed the claim.

Red Bull said it is “satisfied” with the judgement on Sun Mark and associated shipping firm Sea Air & Land Forwarding.

“Red Bull believes strongly in its IP rights and makes legitimate use of them in order to protect its brand value and to safeguard the company's assets,” the Austrian company said.

Food and drinks maker Sun Mark, set up in 1995, also manufactures Royalty Non-Alcoholic Ginger Beer and Robust energy drink.

Source : http://www.just-drinks.com/news/sun-mark-to-appeal-red-bull-trademark-win_id107636.aspx

Trademark Infringement | "Nike sues Fujian resident over trademark infringement of Kobe"

By : Whats on Xiamen 
Source : http://www.whatsonxiamen.com  
Category : Trademark Infringement 

After basketball legend Michael Jordan filed a trademark infringement suit over use of his name in China, NBA star Kobe Bryan is now in a similar dispute.

Fujian resident Hong Qinping registered "KB-Kobe" as well as the Chinese translation of Kobe as a trademark for use on handbags, suitcases and wallets - which drew the attention of Bryant's powerful sponsor Nike.

Nike then protested the registration with the trademark review board at the State Administration of Industry and Commerce.

Yet the board decided Nike's evidence failed to prove Byrant's reputation extends beyond the basketball court to other business domains. It concluded that Hong's trademark does not violate Nike's rights.

In response, Nike recently brought legal action against the review board in Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Court. The case has yet to go to trial.

Source : http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news26225.html

Trademark Infringement | "Monster Energy Assumes Consumers Can’t Distinguish Energy Drinks From Fish Tanks"

By : Laura Northrup   
Source : http://consumerist.com 
Category : Trademark Infringement 

We thought that the company behind Monster Energy drink (and its lawyers) were done with petty legal action against anyone bold enough to use the word "Monster." We last reported on such action in 2009. Turns out that the, uh, monster was only sleeping, though, and the company has re-emerged to issue a cease and desist order to an aquarium keepers' forum, Monster Fishkeepers. That site has owned their trademark since 2005, but Monster Energy apparently claims to own the word "monster." And the letter "M."

Old-school Consumerist readers will remember that suing anyone attempting to name a product or company using the word "Monster" used to be the job of Monster Cable. We kept waiting for Monster Cable and the owner of Monster Energy Company to sue each other in a recursive loop of billable hours that would keep each other out of other companies' way, but it never happened.

And so they've gone after the Monster Aquaria Network, assuming that cans of energy drink and massive aquaria filled with rare fish are pretty much the same thing and that consumers will get confused.

Here's the message posted on a blog asking site users and other interested parties to help:

    On February 24, Monster Energy Company sent a cease & desist letter to MonsterFishKeepers.com in regards to their use of the marks MonsterFishKeepers, and the MonsterFishKeepers “M” symbol in connection with clothing, accessories, and stickers. It also requires us to drop the trademark applications that were pending at the time for said trademarks. Monster Energy claimed that the use of these marks constituted trademark infringement and would cause confusion with their own MONSTER™, MONSTER ENERGY®, and MONSTER “Claw M®” marks. MonsterFishKeepers.com asserted that an informed consumer would be unlikely to mistake the two brands as one is specifically marketed towards the keepers of large fishes in specialized online sites & aquarium stores while the other is more openly marketed in sports-related facilities and traditional retail stores.

    Later on, Monster Energy sent a series of demands including, but not limited to, abandoning the trademark applications for the MonsterFishKeepers “M” symbol marks as well as ceasing to use those marks in connection with apparel & accessories, refraining from using or applying for any marks containing the word “Monster” or the letter “M,” refraining from using the colors black & green on any MonsterFishKeepers.com or Monster Aquaria Network Websites or in connection with apparel & accessories, and pay Monster Energy Corporation its attorneys’ fees in connection with this matter. MonsterFishKeepers.com has no intention of agreeing to the bulk of Monster’s demands as these terms are extremely restrictive & unfair, not to mention downright ridiculous in some cases.

    As you know, we have been using our MonsterFishKeepers and the MonsterFishKeepers “M” design marks since March 30, 2005 and the marks were duly registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since October 23, 2007. We strongly believe that the law is on MonsterFishKeepers.com’s side, but MonsterFishKeepers.com will not be able to fund the legal proceedings that would be needed to resolve this dispute with Monster Energy. Unfortunately for MonsterFishKeepers.com, Monster Energy can file an unlimited number of appeals even if MonsterFishKeepers.com wins the first round of the case; in the end, Monster Energy would certainly outlast MonsterFishKeepers.com in the legal proceedings after MonsterFishKeepers.com runs out of money since there is no way that such a small company could compete with such a large company in terms of legal fees. As such, we, the staff of the Monster Aquaria Network, ask that you, the reader & MonsterFishKeepers.com member & supporter, help us to convince Monster Energy Corporation to drop this issue immediately. We intend to contact them via any means possible to let them know that this is not acceptable as well as hit them at the bottom line by boycotting all Monster Energy Corporation products. We would greatly appreciate it if you would take a small amount of time out of your day to let Monster Energy know that what they’re doing is not going to be well regarded/well perceived by us as consumers of their soft drink products.

    In closing, we thank you for your continued support, and we hope that we will be able to enjoy many more years of fish-filled fun once this issue is resolved.

The site has a Change.org petition, and also encourages fans to contact the company and urge them to be reasonable.

Silly legal action from Monster Energy has been brought down due to consumer outcry before, such as when they pursued a Vermont craft brewery that served up a beer called Vermonster.

Source : http://consumerist.com/2012/07/monster-energy-assumes-consumers-cant-distinguish-energy-drinks-from-fish-tanks.html 

Trademark Infringement | "Know When to Trademark for a Business Advantage"

By : Deanne Katz  
Source : http://www.reuters.com 
Category : Trademark Infringement 

A trademark can be the most important asset you purchase for your business and knowing when to get one can be the difference between good branding and a perfect disaster.

The purpose of a trademark is to protect your brand from competitors. A strong mark uniquely identifies your business so that customers can instantly recognize your work.

It's not unusual for small business owners to register trademarks and it's important to make sure that you register at the right time for maximum impact.

It's tempting to leave trademark registration to a time in the future when you've established your business. But doing that leaves you open to several problems.

It might be that when you go to file your trademark, you discover that it's close to someone else's in the industry.

Generally the first to file is entitled to the trademark and later users are considered infringers. Realizing that someone else owns your mark after you've built brand recognition means starting from square one to find a new way to identify your business. It can be difficult to let go of a mark that you've put a lot of time and effort into making your own.

A more serious concern in delaying a trademark is that someone else in the industry may start to capitalize on your hard-earned reputation.

If you haven't registered a trademark it's difficult to enforce your rights in the case of infringement. While there is an automatic "trademark protection by use," it can be hard to show who used a mark first if there is a dispute.

Registering a trademark is clear documentation of use and can help to protect your rights.

It's not complicated to register a trademark but the amount of time needed to do a thorough investigation before filing can be significant. Finding an attorney who specializes in trademarks can ensure that your brand is protected.

Good business is often a matter of timing and registering a trademark is no different. Knowing when to trademark is just another piece of building a strong business.

Source : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-freeenterprise-idUS426638143520120718 

Trademark Infringement | "Fashion Group seminar to focus on 'Protecting the Brand'"

By : Fibre2Fashion 

Source : http://www.fibre2fashion.com  

Category : Trademark Infringement 

Fashion Group International Philadelphia will present a design, copyright, and trademark law discussion, "Protecting the Brand," Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm, at the Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg office, 1835 Market Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA.

With charges of counterfeiting, plagiarism, and trademark infringement in the fashion industry currently being decided in the courts, there's no better time for a discussion on legal and branding issues.

Legal and branding experts participating in the evening's panel discussion include:

    Barbara Kolsun, General Counsel, Stuart Weitzman LLC;

    Guillermo Jimenez, Professor, International Trade and Marketing, Fashion Institute of Technology;

    Lisa A. Lori, Partner, Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg, LLP; and

    Kirk Widra, Professor, Fashion Marketing, Art Institute of Philadelphia.

Prior to the panel discussion, from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm, attendees will have the opportunity to network and preview fall 2012 fashion trends. Evening includes cheese and wine. A question and answer session will directly follow the moderated panel discussion. Tickets to the event are $20 for FGI members, $40 for non-members and $10 for students with ID.

Fashion Group International is a global, non-profit, professional organization with 5,000 members in the fashion industry including apparel, accessories, beauty and home. 

Source : http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/apparel-news/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=113547

Trademark Infringement | "iPads Removed from Shelves after Trademark Ruling"

By: http://english.cri.cn
Category: Trademark Infringement

Apple Trademark Infringement

Apple iPads are being removed from a number of retail stores in China following a court's ruling that a local company owns the right to the name, Hebei Youth Daily reports.


The tablets have been confiscated from shelves in many retail shops and electronic stores due to a Chinese company's lawsuit against the Apple Inc over the trademark infringement, in Shijiazhuang city, capital of North China's Hebei province.

Some retailers have removed the iPad tablets to back storerooms, fearing that local Administration of Industry and Commerce will confiscate them.

An inspection squad of the Xinhua District's Administration of Industry and Commerce in Shijiazhuang city, launched a campaign to crack down the sale of the tablets on Feb 9 after receiving Proview Technology's complaint. A total of 45 iPad tablets were confiscated by the authority in the district over two days.

Proview Technology, a Shenzhen-based company, claimed in early 2011 that Apple Inc had been infringing on its iPad trademark and launched court proceedings, said Xie Xianghui, a lawyer for Proview Shenzhen.
The company has extended its complaint to the Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce and appealed to three courts in other places: Shenzhen Futian District People's Court, Huizhou Municipal Intermediate People's Court and Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court.

Proview Taipei registered the iPad trademark in a number of countries and regions as early as 2000, and Proview Shenzhen registered the trademark on the Chinese mainland in 2001.

Apple bought the rights to use the trademark from Proview Taipei in February 2010 via IP Application Development Limited, a company registered in Britain. However, Proview Shenzhen claims it still reserves the right to use the trademark on the Chinese mainland. The two sides have been entangled in a legal battle ever since.

The Municipal Intermediate People's Court in Shenzhen rejected a lawsuit by Apple and IP accusing Proview Shenzhen of infringing on the iPad trademark in December 2011.

Source: http://english.cri.cn/6909/2012/02/13/189s680706.htm

Trademark Infringement | "Firm claims Apple infringing trademark in China"

By: http://www.google.com/hostednews/
Category: Trademark Infringement

SHANGHAI — A Taiwan-linked company which claims ownership of the iPad trademark in China has filed lawsuits and lodged complaints against Apple for infringement, according to a lawyer.
Apple lost a legal battle against Proview Technology (Shenzhen) last year after a Chinese court ruled the US company lacked evidence in its claim that Proview was infringing its trademark for the iconic tablet computer.
Xie Xianghui, a lawyer for Proview, which is based in the southern city of Shenzhen, said the company had now filed lawsuits through the courts and made formal complaints to the government after the ruling.
"We are requesting a halt to this trademark infringement," he told AFP.
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
Proview Technology (Shenzhen) is owned by a Taiwanese company that registered the trademark name "iPad" in several countries including China as early as 2000, years before Apple began selling the product.
Apple bought the rights for the global trademark, but Proview Technology (Shenzhen) retained the Chinese rights, the official Xinhua news agency has reported.
The China-based company has previously asked Apple to pay 10 billion yuan ($1.6 billion) in compensation for trademark infringement.
Apple started selling its sleek iPad in China in September 2010, after months of grey-market action among avid buyers unwilling to wait for the official launch.
Proview had made a formal complaint to a branch of the Beijing Industry and Commerce Administration, as well as the same government agency in two other Chinese cities, which could result in fines for Apple, he said.
The company was also pursuing a lawsuit against Apple in Shanghai and had sued two household appliance retailers to pressure them to stop selling iPads, Xie added.

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iOY52HToVCVzVsGmpuAJC6loOnRQ?docId=CNG.013c9d26e5bc6771d8e4bb78654007fe.2c1

Trademark Infringement | "JOHN RIGBY & CO.(R) Reaches Settlement in London Trademark Infringement Claims"

By: Press Release 
Source: http://www.marketwatch.com
Category: Trademark Infringement

DALLAS, Jan 27, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- John Rigby & Co.(R) today announced the resolution of its trademark and intellectual property dispute against a London, UK-based entity that was operating under a confusingly similar name and trade dress. As a result of the settlement, "John Rigby & Co. (Gunmakers) Ltd." and affiliated entities have agreed, in part, to cease operations under any Rigby(TM)- related trade name; to permanently close their website; to change their corporate names; to discontinue application for, or any use of, registered trademarks held by the parent of John Rigby & Co. LLC; and to not infringe on the John Rigby & Co.(R), and related, trademarks in the future. London-based J. Roberts & Son is the authorized agent for John Rigby & Co. in the United Kingdom.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/john-rigby-cor-reaches-settlement-in-london-trademark-infringement-claims-2012-01-27 

Trademark Infringement | "Apple and Zynga branded trademark “bullies” "

By: Michelle Hammond 
Source: http://www.smartcompany.com.au 
Category: Trademark Infringement 


Tech giants Apple and Zynga are among the top five trademark “bullies”, according to new data, which identifies companies involved in the highest number of trademark infringement cases.
The findings, published by trademark search engine Trademarkia, are based on data from the US Patent and Trademark Office. 
Kellogg North America appears as the top trademark “bully” for 2011, followed by The Lance Armstrong Foundation, Apple, Zynga and snowboard maker K-2.
The legal team of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was ranked number eight.
Facebook has been known to sue companies because they have the word “face” or "book” in their name, while Apple has protested over the use of the words “Pad”, “app” and “pod”.
Meanwhile, The Lance Armstrong Foundation has repeatedly attempted to block use of the word “strong” by other companies.
While it can be difficult for smaller companies to avoid being “bullied” over trademarks and patents, the International Chamber of Commerce is attempting to make it easier.
The ICC has launched the latest edition of IP Roadmap, an up-to-date guide on intellectual property, including the impact of technology on patents.
The publication, ICC Intellectual Property Roadmap: Current and Emerging Issues for Business and Policymakers, has been updated to highlight IP developments throughout the world.
Containing contributions from ICC experts from around the globe, the IP Roadmap is a useful reference tool to help businesses keep pace with the rapidly-evolving IP landscape.
Contentious issues include the increasingly high cost of obtaining and enforcing patents, and the harmonisation of patent laws worldwide.
“Work on substantive harmonisation of patent laws worldwide has been ongoing at WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) since 1984,” the report said.
“But even before international substantive patent law harmonisation is achieved, significant progress can be made to enable work-sharing among national patent offices.”
“Patent offices engaged in such work-sharing will retain the ultimate responsibility of deciding for themselves whether a patent should be granted or not.”
The report also highlights the development of new technologies and the subsequent impact on intellectual property laws.
“The commercial application of new technologies… has led not only to the development of new types of products [and] services, and forms of distribution, but also to new methods of infringement,” it said.
“Unless traditional business… take note and respond quickly and accordingly, to both opportunities and challenges, they risk being overtaken by developments.”
“Business must highlight the important and beneficial role that IP rights play for SMEs, spin-offs and start-ups in the context of cooperation, collaboration, specialisation and financing.”
“The intellectual property system is a precondition for markets for technologies and innovations that are often developed by SMEs.”

Source: http://www.smartcompany.com.au/internet/2012-01-27-apple-and-zynga-branded-trademark-bullies.html

Trademark Infringement | "Medicines Co., Perrigo, Lauder, SOPA: Intellectual Property"

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




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

Jan. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Medicines Co. and Fresenius’s APP Pharmaceuticals Inc. settled litigation over patents for the Angiomax anticoagulant drug, with Medicines agreeing to pay $30 million to license some APP drugs.

Medicines Co., based in Parsippany, New Jersey, sued Schaumburg, Illinois-based APP in October 2009 IN Wilmington, Delaware, federal court alleging patent infringement for plans to market a generic copy of Angiomax. APP announced the settlement yesterday.

“The settlement agreement includes a license by The Medicines Co. to APP” to sell generic Angiomax in the U.S. starting May 1, 2019, Medicines said in a statement.

Medicines will pay APP $30 million for a non-exclusive license “to sell 10 specified generic products” to hospitals and suppliers until Jan. 22, 2022, according to a Medicines filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The case is The Medicines Co. v. APP Pharmaceuticals, 09- CV-00752, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

Perrigo, Apotex Sued by Meda Over Generic Astepro Spray

Generic drugmakers Perrigo Co. and Apotex Inc. were sued by Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc. and accused of infringing a U.S. patent for the nasal spray Astepro, used to treat allergies.

Meda, based in Somerset, New Jersey, contends Perrigo, based in Allegan, Michigan, and Apotex, of Toronto, plan to market copies of the drug before its U.S. patent 8,071,073 expires in 2028. It filed a complaint Jan. 19 in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey.

“Perrigo is committed to making quality health care more affordable for our customers,” Chief Executive Officer Joseph C. Papa said yesterday in a statement.

An Apotex spokesman, Elie Betito, didn’t immediately reply to voice and e-mail messages seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Meda is a unit of Solna, Sweden-based Meda AB.

The case is Meda v. Apotex, 12-cv-361, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton).

Trademark

Estee Lauder Sued Over Use of ‘Empress’ for SeanJohn Fragrance

Estee Lauder Cos. and its M.A.C. Cosmetics unit were sued for trademark infringement by a maker of hair-care products.

According to the complaint filed Jan. 10 in federal court in Manhattan, Empress Inc. of Dallas objects to the use of the word “Empress” for fragrances and other cosmetic products made by Estee Lauder for performer Sean Jean Combs’ Sean John Fragrances.

Empress, whose products target African-American women, said it’s been in existence as a unit of Dallas-based Colberts Inc., since 2002. It registered its marks in the U.S., Canada and Europe, according to the complaint.

The Texas company said that despite its opposition to the issuance of any Empress-related marks for the Sean John products and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to register the marks, an Empress SeanJohn fragrance was released in August.

Customers are confused by SeanJohn’s use of the name, and Empress said it received inquiries from customers who were “surprised as to who was selling the products.”

It claims to be damaged by the use of the word “Empress” for the SeanJohn products, and asked the court to bar further infringement of its trademarks. Additionally, it seeks a court order for the destruction of all infringing promotional materials, and awards of money damages, defendants’ profits flowing from the alleged infringement, attorney fees and litigation costs.

New York-based Estee Lauder doesn’t comment on pending litigation, spokeswoman Kathleen Pierce said in an e-mail.

Empress is represented by Stephen R. Roth, Orville R. Cockings and Aaron S. Eckenthal of Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik LLP of Westfield, New Jersey.

The case is Empress Inc. v. SeanJohn Fragrances, 1:12-cv- 00193-KMW, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

New College of Humanities Trademark Application Rejected in U.K.

The New College of the Humanities, a private school in London whose tuition is twice that of the maximum for public universities in the U.K., had its application to register its name as a trademark rejected by that country’s Intellectual Property Office, the BBC reported.

University of Oxford’s New College had raised concerns about possible confusion the new school’s name would cause and itself registered “New College, Oxford” as a trademark, according to the BBC.

The private school told the BBC it will re-apply to register its name as a trademark “in due course” and that it expects to be successful the next time.

Government officials had challenged the private school’s use of the term “university college,” noting it hadn’t received that status and lacked the power to award its own degrees, according to the BBC.

Alberta’s Queen of Tarts to Change Name to Dauphine After Suit

An Ontario pastry chef whose tarts were featured on Martha Stewart’s television program sued an Alberta bakery owner for trademark infringement, Canada’s CTV.com reported.

The fight is over the “Queen of Tarts” trademark registered to Stephanie Pick of Toronto in 2004, according to CTV.com.

Linda Kearney began using the Queen of Tarts to sell her lemon tarts in an Edmonton, Alberta, farmers market, and later owned a bakery and café by the same name, CTV.com reported.

Pick was ordered to pay $10,000 in damages and to find a new name for her business, which she told CTV.com will be “Dauphine,” and has now cautioned other new business owners to register their trademarks.

Copyright

Music Group Urges ‘Hysterical’ SOPA Detractors to Be More French

The U.S. music industry would get a boost from tighter controls on pirated content, just as France has seen digital music sales rise after introducing its own rules, said an industry group representing record labels.

Digital album sales rose 71 percent last year in France compared with 19 percent in the U.S., the largest music market, according to a study by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which represents record companies such as Universal Music, Sony Music and EMI.

More than a fourth of users steal music online, causing industrywide sales declines, the IFPI said. Still, U.S. Web companies have fought against the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act, the most recently proposed anti-piracy legislation, which they say would require them to police users and would restrict innovation. Wikipedia took its encyclopedia offline and Google Inc. put a black bar across its logo in protest last week. The reaction caused lawmakers to shelve the bills.

“We’ve seen some pretty hysterical reaction to those bills, but if you look in the long run, it is never easy to move those things forward,” said Frances Moore, chief executive of IFPI, which is affiliated with the Recording Industry Association of America in the U.S. “It isn’t a question of whether they will tackle piracy; it’s how they will tackle piracy.”

The French legislation, passed in 2009, has increased sales of singles on Apple Inc.’s iTunes music service by 23 percent, the IFPI said. The French law, which gives illegal downloaders three warnings before their case is sent to a criminal court, was opposed by Internet service providers.

Digital music revenue grew 8 percent worldwide last year to $5.2 billion and helped slow declines in total music sales to 3 percent from 8 percent in 2010, the IFPI said. Digital music sales in the U.S. have become the primary source of revenue for record companies.

“Our digital business is progressing in spite of the environment in which it operates, not because of it,” Moore said. “We need legislation from governments with coordinated measures that deal with piracy effectively and in all its forms. We also need more cooperation from intermediaries such as search engines and advertisers.”

For copyright news, click here.

Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage

Ex-Sanofi Research Chemist Pleads Guilty in Trade Secrets Case

A research chemist entered a guilty plea to stealing trade secrets from her former employer Sanofi-Aventis.

Yuan Li, a Chinese citizen living in Somerset, New Jersey, pleaded guilty to taking data related to Sanofi compounds and selling this information -- including their chemical structures -- through the website belonging to a company in which she had a 50 percent ownership.

According to court papers, Li was a partner in Abby Pharmatech Inc., which was purported to be a subsidiary of a chemical company in Xiamen, China. Between October 2008 and June 2011, she assigned Abby catalog numbers to the chemical structures of the Sanofi compounds and offered them for sale.

Li entered her plea in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey, Jan. 17. She faces a potential 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

Sentencing is set for April 23.

Li was represented by Paul Brickfield of Brickfield & Donahue of River Edge, New Jersey. The government’s case was prosecuted by Gurbir S. Grewal of the Economic Crimes Unit of the S.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark, New Jersey.

The case is U.S. A. v. Li, 3:12-cr-00034-JAP, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton).

Lawmakers Consider Trade Secret Measure for Heliskiing GPS Data

Lawmakers in Alaska’s Haines Borough are considering a measure that would designate as protectable trade secrets global positioning system data used for helicopter skiing, Alaska’s Chilkat Daily News reported.

Under the present law all commercial ski-tour operators are required to use as GPS system capable of tracking and preserving information about the routes they use to and from skiing and snowboarding areas, according to the newspaper.

Sean Brownell of Alaska Heliskiing wrote the lawmakers demanding the data be kept from public view or “you will be giving away our trade secrets and competitors in the heliskiing industry would have access to all our research and confidential information and where we ski,” the Daily News reported.

One Haines Borough lawmaker who objected to keeping the data confidential compared the ski operations to the fishing industry, saying “the state tells you where you can fish, but where you put your net in the water is not proprietary,” according to the Daily News.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-24/medicines-co-perrigo-lauder-sopa-intellectual-property.html

Trademark Infringement | "Kodak, Dr Pepper, EFF, Dow Chemical: Intellectual Property"

By: Victoria Slind-Flor
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


Eastman Kodak Co. (EK), the 132-year-old camera and film company, sued Fujifilm Corp. for patent infringement.
The suit, filed Jan. 13 in federal court in Rochester, New York, accuses the Japanese company of infringing five patents related to digital imaging.
According to court papers, Fujifilm’s FinePix cameras infringe the patents. Kodak also objects to the importation of user manuals and components for the camera, saying they also infringe.
Rochester, New York-based Kodak asked the court for orders barring future infringement, and for awards of money damages, attorney fees, and litigation costs. Claiming the infringement is deliberate, Kodak asked the court to triple the monetary award to punish the Japanese company for its actions.
In a statement released Jan. 13, Kodak said to no avail it has “long been in discussion with Fujifilm” about taking a license to the disputed patents that cover, the company claims, “pioneering digital imaging technology.”
More than 30 other companies have already taken a license including LG Electronics Inc. (066575), Samsung Electronics Co. (005930), and Nokia Oyj (NOK1V), Kodak said.
In dispute are patents 5,493,335, 6,292,218, 6,573,927, 6,441,854 and 5,164,831.
The case is Eastman Kodak Co. v. Fujifilm Corp., 6:12-cv- 06025, U.S. District Court, Western District of New York (Rochester).
For more patent news, click here.

Trademark

Dr Pepper Settles Trademark Dispute With Regional Bottler

Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. (DPS) and one of its regional bottlers have settled a trademark dispute related to the beverage’s history and the use of cane sugar in its formula.
The beverage company, based in Plano, Texas, filed suit in June in federal court in Sherman, Texas, accusing Dr Pepper Bottling Co. of Dublin, Texas, of infringing Dr Pepper trademarks by using a bottle with an unauthorized modified label.
The public was confused by the different label, and other bottlers’ sales were negatively affected by the Dublin bottler’s actions, according to the complaint.
The product is a soft drink first made 116 years ago in Waco, Texas. The defendant was the first bottler of the product, according to court papers.
The regional bottler, unlike many others, refused to switch to high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, and also didn’t use beet sugar. According to the response it filed Sept. 12, Dublin Dr Pepper had always used only cane sugar, and as a result its product was sought out by Dr Pepper aficionados worldwide.
A comparable battle was fought in federal court in Dallas between PepsiCo Inc. (PEP) and a Texas company that imported made-in- Mexico Pepsi manufactured with cane sugar. That case ended with an order barring the Texas company from importing and selling products made in other countries bearing the Pepsi marks.
That case was PepsiCo Inc. (PEP) v. Marroko USA LLC, 3:09-cv- 00338-B, I.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
In the case brought by Dr Pepper Snapple, the regional bottler claims that the beverage company tacitly approved its actions, including the special label indicating its product is “Dublin Dr Pepper.” Dr Pepper Snapple has “reveled and openly welcomed the free exposure and increased name recognition provided by Dublin Dr Pepper,” the bottler said in court papers.
Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. According to a Jan. 12 court filing, the companies have a confidential settlement agreement. They agreed to dismiss the case and each side is bearing its own litigation costs.
The companies did issue a joint statement at the time the settlement agreement was filed. They said that under the agreement, the regional bottler will quit producing Dr Pepper and that the beverage company has bought the bottler’s sales and distribution operations and the right to distribute Dr Pepper in the bottler’s distribution territory.
Dr Pepper will also make and distribute Dr Pepper sweetened with cane sugar in the regional bottler’s former territory and will also sell it in other parts of Texas. The cane-sugar version will be bottled and canned in what the beverage company called “distinct, nostalgic packaging.”
The regional bottler will still operate its museum and its “Old Doc’s Soda Shop,” which will sell officially licensed Dr Pepper merchandise, according to the statement.
Dr Pepper Snapple is represented by Van Harold Beckwith and Jonathan Robert Mureen of Houston’s Baker Botts LLP (1143L), together with Clyde Moody Siebman and Lawrence Augustine Phillips of Siebman Reynolds Burg & Phillips LLP of Sherman, Texas.
Dublin Dr Pepper is represented by Richter Darryl Burke, Samuel Franklin Baxter and Steven D. Wolens of McKool Smith PC (0062189L) of Dallas.
The case is Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc. v. Dr Pepper Bottling Co., 4:11-cv-00398-MHS-ALM, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Sherman).
For more trademark news, click here.

Copyright

British Student Loses Extradition Fight With U.S. Over Website
A British student whose website gave people access to copyrighted movies and TV shows lost a U.K. ruling to avoid being extradited to the U.S. to face criminal charges.
Richard O’Dwyer, whose TV Shack website triggered a U.S. lawsuit, said he would appeal the ruling, according to a televised press conference after the decision was issued in London Jan. 13. O’Dwyer had argued the extradition was invalid because his actions aren’t a crime in Britain.
O’Dwyer’s lawyer, Ben Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers, didn’t immediately return a call for comment.

EFF, Fish & Richardson Seek Sanctions in Copyright Suit

Lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Boston’s Fish & Richardson say they will seek sanctions against a maker of astrology software that sued two computer scientists for copyright infringement.
Astrolabe Inc. filed suit Sept. 30 in federal court in Boston, targeting Arthur David Olson of the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute and Paul R. Eggert of the Computer Science Department of the University of California, Los Angeles.
The two computer scientists were accused of infringing the copyright for an atlas containing historical time zone information. Astrolabe objects to the scientists’ websites publication of time zone data.
Brewster, Massachusetts-based Astrolabe asked the court to order the two scientists to halt their alleged infringement, and for awards of money damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Astrolabe bases its claims on its ownership of the “ACS International Atlas,” the “ACS American Atlas,” and related software programs and databases.
The case has attracted the interest of the scientific and technology community because the data is used in Unix and Linux platforms to set clocks and for time-zone updates. In a posting to a technology interest-group mailing list, Olson said the server that provides these updates has been shut down in response to the suit.
Stephen Colebourne, a developer who works with Java programs in the U.K., said in a blog posting that the result of the takedown is that “there is no longer a single central location for time-zone information for computing.”
He called for the major tech companies to step into the dispute on behalf of the two computer scientists.
In a notice posted on its website Jan. 12, San Francisco- based EFF called the suit “bogus,” saying that facts aren’t copyright protectable.
Noting that Olson took the updates offline, EFF said the case “would be laughable but for the dangerous consequence” and noted the “shock and dismay of the many users and developers who relied upon the updates.”
Astrolabe has never served the complaint on the two scientists. After filing the suit, “perhaps realizing the absurdity of its legal position, however, Astrolabe didn’t bother to take that next step, leaving Olson and Eggert in legal limbo.”
The motion to be filed asks for sanctions against Astrolabe, saying the company’s suit is frivolous and factually baseless. Astrolabe has “no factual basis to allege that the defendants copied” anything protectable under copyright law, according to court papers.
Lawyers for the two scientists asked for award of attorney fees in addition to sanctions. “Sanctioning Astrolabe and its counsel for this conduct will affirm defendants lawful and selfless efforts on behalf of Internet users worldwide and deter similar misconduct in the future,” they argued.
Astrolabe is represented by Julie C. Molloy of East Sandwich, Massachusetts, who didn’t respond immediately to an e- mailed request for comment.
The scientists are represented by Adam J. Kessel and Olivia T. Nguyen of Fish & Richardson PC and Corynne McSherry and Mitchell L. Stoltz of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The case is Astrolabe Inc. v. Olson 1:11-cv-11725-GAO, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).
For copyright news, click here.
Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage

Ex-Dow Scientist Gets 5-Year Term for Trade Secret Theft

A former Dow Chemical Co. (DOW) research scientist was sentenced to five years in prison for stealing trade secrets and selling them to Chinese companies.
The sentence against Wen Chyu Liu, also known as David W. Liou, was handed down Jan. 12 by U.S. District Judge James J. Brady in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A jury in February convicted Liu of perjury and conspiring to steal Dow trade secrets. He was indicted in 2005.
Liu, 75, of Houston worked for Dow from 1965 to 1992. At its Plaquemine, Louisiana, facility he had access to secrets related to the manufacture of chlorinated polyethylene or CPE, used in the making of vinyl siding, electrical cable jackets and industrial hoses, according to a U.S. Justice Department statement Jan. 13.
“Liu traveled extensively throughout China to market the stolen information, and evidence introduced at trial showed that he paid current and former Dow employees for Dow’s CPE-related material and information,” the department said.
He paid one Dow worker $50,000 for a process manual and other product-related information, the U.S. said.
Liu’s lawyer, Frank Holthaus of Baton Rouge, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment.
“The technology that Mr. Liou was convicted of stealing belonged to Dow,” the Midland, Michigan-based company said in an e-mailed statement Jan. 13. “Because of his education and position within the company, Mr. Liou knew of its immense value.”
Dow called the theft and sale of its intellectual property “a complete betrayal of the trust imparted to Mr. Liou as a Dow employee.”
A former Dow AgroSciences LLC researcher, Kexue Huang, was sentenced to seven years and three months in federal prison last month after pleading guilty in two consolidated cases to stealing trade secrets to benefit a Chinese university. The Huang prosecution was separate from the Liu case.
The Dow Chemical case is U.S. v. Liu, 05-cr-00085, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana (Baton Rouge). The Dow AgroSciences cases are U.S. v. Huang, 11-cr-00163 and 10-cr- 00102 U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis).

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/kodak-dr-pepper-eff-dow-chemical-intellectual-property.html

Trademark Infringement | "BlackBerry-maker RIM awaits judge’s verdict on BBM trademark battle"

By: Michael Lewis (Business Reporter)
Source: http://www.thestar.com
Category: Trademark Infringement 


A judge has reserved decision on a trademark infringement lawsuit by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement Canada against Research In Motion Ltd. over RIM’s use of the BBM acronym for its popular BlackBerry Messenger service.
Federal Court Judge David Near presided over a lengthy hearing Wednesday in Toronto focusing on legal arguments, with a written decision to be sent to the parties likely in a matter of months, said BBM chief executive Jim MacLeod.
He said the non-profit audience measurement organization is seeking an injunction to prevent Waterloo-based RIM from using the BBM trademark in Canada, plus $15 million in compensation including $5 million in punitive damages. MacLeod said his decades-old organization would be open to talks with RIM to reach a settlement pending the judge’s ruling.
Toronto-based BBM Canada in its claim said use of the BBM acronym for RIM’s social networking service, launched in 2005, has created confusion in the marketplace.
RIM in a statement said the two organizations “are in different industries and have never been competitors in any area. BBM Canada is attempting to obtain trademark protection for the BBM acronym that is well beyond the narrow range of the services it provides and well beyond the scope of rights afforded by Canadian trademark law,” the statement said. RIM said it asked the court to dismiss the application with costs.
RIM also said its application to register BBM as a trademark with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office is pending, countering BBM Canada’s assertion that RIM’s application for the trademark on BBM was denied.
A legal challenge against RIM’s use of another trademark caused the company to abandon its BBX designation for its new operating system after a New Mexico-based software company asserted trademark protection over the acronym. RIM has since rebranded the OS BB10.
RIM has also gone on the offensive in trademark cases, filing an opposition recently with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office over a Markham firm’s application to trademark the term SportsBerry for a sports focused smartphone device and its applications.

Source: http://www.thestar.com/article/1114238--blackberry-maker-rim-awaits-judge-s-verdict-on-bbm-trademark-battle

Trademark Infringement | "Lawyer Who Claimed Adidas Infringed His Trademark for ‘We Not Me’ Loses on One Claim"

By: Debra Cassens Weiss
Source: http://www.abajournal.com
Categoty: Trademark Infringement


A federal magistrate has rejected part of an Illinois lawyer’s lawsuit that claimed Adidas infringed on his registered trademarks for the phrase, “We not me.”

The lawyer, W. Brand Bobosky of suburban Naperville, had claimed Adidas infringed his trademarks when it used the phrase in a 2007 “Basketball is a Brotherhood” marketing campaign, the National Law Journal reports. Bobosky had started using “We not me” on lapel pins when he became Naperville Rotarian President in 2000, and filed trademark applications in August 2004 and March 2008.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak of Oregon invalidated the registrations in a Dec. 29 opinion (PDF) that found Bobosky did not intend to use the trademark for all the types of clothing and merchandise he listed on his applications. "A recent ruling of the Trademark Board indicates that proof of a lack of bona fide intent to use even one item in a class of goods on an intent-to-use application invalidates the application for that entire class," Papak wrote.

Papak allowed Bobosky to pursue an unfair competition claim against Adidas. Bobosky appeared undaunted in an interview with the NLJ. "The fact that it is not registered does not deplete or delete the claim if there's found to be an unregistered trademark that has been infringed on," Bobosky said. "I'm optimistic because the infringement was there. … We survived summary judgment, and that's big."


Source: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_who_claimed_adidas_infringed_his_trademark_for_we_not_me_sees_partia/

Trademark Infringement | "HC rules in favour of Indian Co in trademark copyright case"

By: The Economic Times
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has dismissed the Netherlandbased liquor group's plea, seeking to restrain Tilaknagar Industries Ltd here, from using trademarks 'Mansion House' and 'Savoy Club' on products sold in India.

Tilaknagar Industries claims to be a major player in the sale of Indian made foreign liquor in India and manufactures 40 brands, including the 'Mansion House' brandy.

UTO Nederland BV and Distilleerderji en Likeurstokerji Herman Jansen BV had filed a suit alleging that Tilaknagar Industries, by printing labels on its products, has infringed their copyright in the original artistic works.

The plaintiffs claimed that they were the registered proprietors of the trademarks 'MANSION HOUSE','MH', 'MHB' and 'SAVOY CLUB' and contended that the defendant has, by using the trademarks, passed off their products, such as alcoholic beverages, spirits and liquors as those of the plaintiffs or as emanating from or being associated with the plaintiffs.

Comparing the labels of the products sold by plaintiffs as well as the defendants, Justice S FVajifdar held in his 90-page order on December 22 that there was no similarity between them.

The literature, shape of the label and the entire get-up of the labels are different. Prima-facie, the mere depiction of the official residence of the Lord Mayer of the city of London would not constitute an infringement of copyright.

This device is used on the defendant's label in a manner different from the manner in which it is used on the plaintiffs' label.


Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/services/advertising/hc-rules-in-favour-of-indian-co-in-trademark-copyright-case/articleshow/11332985.cms

Trademark Infringement | "Once again, RIM sued for trademark infringement"

By: RnM Team
Source: http://www.radioandmusic.com
Category: Trademark Infringement



MUMBAI: Research in Motion (RIM) has been sued by a Canadian radio and TV industry group, for naming its BlackBerry Messenger service as BBM.

BBM Canada filed the suite against RIM after failing to negotiate with the company on renaming the trademark.

BBM Canada's chief executive Jim MacLeod said, “BBM Canada doesn't want to pick on RIM, which has had a tough year with declining market share, sliding profit and another trademark lawsuit loss over the use of the BBX name. We want our name back. I find it kind of amazing that this wouldn't have been thought about before they decided to use the name. The same thing goes for BBX."

“RIM also turned down an offer from BBM Canada in which the group would rename itself if RIM would pay for the costs of the rebranding, but the smartphone maker wasn't interested,” MacLeod said to a daily.

BBM Canada was established as the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement in 1944. The company changed its name to BBM in 1960s and to BBM Canada in the early 1990s, according to MacLeod. The company has revenue of around $50 million and is owned by broadcasters and advertisers.

RIM also faced a similar trademark infringement case in October, when it announced that that next smartphone and tablet operating system would be titled as BBX, a name owned by the New Mexican software firm Basis International. Earlier this month, RIM was denied the permission to use ‘BBX’  due to which the company renamed it with ‘BlackBerry 10.’


Source: http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/once-again-rim-sued-trademark-infringement

Trademark Infringement | "BBM Canada hits RIM with trademark infringement over BBM use"

By Ian Hardy
Source: www.mobilesyrup.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


The pile keeps growing for RIM. Just when you think they are in the clear for a couple days, something else emerges. After allegations of trademark infringement, RIM recently shifted BBX, their upcoming smartphone software platform that will “leapfrog” the competition, to ”BlackBerry 10″.

Now a Toronto-based company called BBM Canada is going after RIM for infringing on their “BBM” trademark. BBM Canada, according to their website provides “provide broadcast measurement and consumer behaviour data, as well as industry-leading intelligence to broadcasters, advertisers and agencies”. RIM’s BlackBerry Messenger, otherwise known as BBM, is one of RIM’s saving graces, has over 50 million subscribers and offers them encrypted instant messaging between BlackBerry users. Apparently at the BBM Canada offices, employees are being mistaken for RIM employees and have been getting calls requesting support for RIM’s BBM service.

BBM Canada attempted to negotiate with RIM, but talks failed – they even went as far as offering to completely rebrand the company, possibly at RIM’s expense, but again there was no response. So now a court hearing is scheduled for January 11th, 2012. BBM Canada is  requesting RIM and all their employees to stop using the term BBM, plus ponying up for damages to their brand for infringing on their trademark.

Jim MacLeod, president and CEO of BBM Canada said “We want our name back… I find it kind of amazing that this wouldn’t have been thought about before they decided to use the name. The same thing goes for BBX.”

Just another day…


Source: http://mobilesyrup.com/2011/12/22/bbm-canada-hits-rim-with-trademark-infringement-over-bbm-use/

Trademark Infringement | "Google, Sprint, Juniper, Smith & Nephew, Broadcom: Intellectual Property"

By Victoria Slind-Flor
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Google Inc. (GOOG), owner of the world’s most popular Internet search engine, was sued by British Telecommunications Plc for allegedly infringing six U.S. patents for mobile-device technology.

BT, based in London, is seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages against Mountain View, California-based Google, according to a complaint filed Dec. 15 in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware.

“BT has invested heavily over the last 20 years,” generating “numerous patents,” and Google’s products including the Android operating system, maps, search, music and book services wrongly “incorporate BT’s patented technologies,” according to the complaint.

Last year, BT sued U.S. cable company Cox Communications Inc. in the same court over four patents for transmitting data over cable networks. A trial in that case is tentatively scheduled for 2014, according to court papers.

“We believe these claims are groundless,” Jim Prosser, a Google spokesman, said in an e-mailed message. He said the company would defend against them.

The case is British Telecommunications Plc v. Google Inc., 11-CV-1249, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

Sprint Sues Time Warner, Comcast Over Digital Phone Technology

Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), the third-largest U.S. wireless operator, accused Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC), Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and two other cable-TV companies of infringing patents related to transmitting phone calls over digital lines.

Sprint filed separate lawsuits yesterday in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, against Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Cable One Inc. and Cox Communications Inc. Overland Park, Kansas-based Sprint claims the companies are using technology it patented in the 1990s for transmission of voice data packets.

The companies “have realized the great value in this technology and have misappropriated it without Sprint’s permission,” Sprint said in each complaint.

The 12 patents include some that were asserted against Vonage Holdings Corp. (VG), which agreed to pay $80 million to license the technology after losing a 2007 trial.

Alex Dudley, a spokesman for New York-based Time Warner Cable, said the company doesn’t comment on pending litigation. John Demming, a spokesman for Philadelphia-based Comcast, also declined to comment.

Rima Calderon, a spokeswoman for Cable One parent Washington Post Co. (WPO), said the Washington-based company doesn’t comment on litigation. Todd Smith, a spokesman for Atlanta-based Cox, declined to comment, citing the pending lawsuit.

The cases are Sprint Communications Co. v. Time Warner Capt Inc., 11cv2686; Sprint v. Cable One Inc., 11cv2685; Sprint v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, 11cv2684; and Sprint v. Cox Communications Inc., 11cv2683, all U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).

Juniper Networks Sues Palo Alto Networks Over U.S. Patents

Juniper Networks Inc. accused Palo Alto Networks Inc. in a lawsuit of infringing six U.S. patents for firewall technology used to protect communications networks from intrusion.

Juniper, based in Sunnyvale, California, is seeking a jury trial, unspecified damages and an order to stop misuse of its inventions, according to the complaint filed today in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware.

“As a leading high-performance networking company, we will take every appropriate measure to defend and protect our innovation,” David Shane, a Juniper spokesman, said in an e-mail.

Palo Alto networks, based in Santa Clara, California, “was founded by several former high-level employees of Juniper to compete against Juniper,” lawyers for Juniper said in court papers.

“We don’t provide comment on these types of matters,” Mike Haro, a spokesman for Palo Alto Networks, said in a phone interview.

In a statement last week, Haro’s firm said it was named by industry researcher Gartner Inc. as a leader in the rapidly evolving field.

The case is Juniper Networks Inc. (JNPR) v. Palo Alto Networks Inc., 11-cv-1258, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

Smith & Nephew $85 Million Verdict Against Arthrex Removed

A U.S. judge threw out an $85 million verdict that Smith & Nephew Plc had won against Arthrex Inc. over patented technology for surgical anchors used in shoulder surgery.

U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman in Portland, Oregon, found that, under the correct interpretation of the patent, no reasonable jury could find that Arthrex infringed the Smith & Nephew patent, Arthrex said in a statement.

The devices are anchored to a bone to repair tears in the rotator cuff or in the labrum, a fibrous ring in the shoulder socket. The June trial was the third in the case, which began in 2004 against Naples, Florida-based Arthrex.

“While we are very pleased with the judge’s ruling, we are perplexed by S&N’s continued attempt to compete in the courtroom rather than the marketplace,” John W. Schmieding, Arthrex’s general counsel, said in the statement.

London-based Smith & Nephew, Europe’s biggest maker of artificial hips and knees, targeted the SutureTak and PushLock line of suture anchors made by closely held Arthrex.

“We’re disappointed in the court’s latest ruling,” said Joe Metzger, a spokesman for Smith & Nephew. “We are reviewing the decision and expect to appeal and request reinstatement of the jury’s verdict.”

The case is Smith & Nephew Inc. v. Arthrex Inc., 04cv29, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland).

Broadcom Says Judge Ruled Against Emulex on Infringement

Broadcom Corp. (BRCM), a developer of integrated circuits for high-speed data networks, said a federal judge ruled that Emulex Corp. (ELX) infringed two of its patents.

The infringing products include semiconductors and four channel switches, Irvine, California-based Broadcom said in a statement yesterday.

An entry in the court docket in Santa Ana, California, said U.S. District Judge James Selna had denied Emulex’s motion for summary judgment.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision and to have prevailed in our case against Emulex,” Art Chong, Broadcom’s general counsel, said in the statement.

Broadcom said it has asked the court to issue a permanent injunction that would prohibit the sale of the infringing products, the company said. The case was filed in November 2009.

Katherine Lane, a spokeswoman for Costa Mesa, California- based Emulex, didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

The case is Emulex v. Broadcom, 09-01310, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division (Santa Ana).


Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/google-sprint-juniper-smith-nephew-intellectual-property.html

Trademark Infringement | "‘BlackBerry 10’ Moniker Born Out of Lawsuit"

By: Carl Franzen
Source: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com
Category: Trademark Infringement

BlackBerry Trademark Infringement

Former smartphone king Research in Motion, the creator of the popular BlackBerry line of devices, has been having a tough go of its business lately.

The latest blow: A federal judge in New Mexico on Tuesday ruled to temporarily block RIM from using the name “BBX” for its new operating system across the globe, after a trademark infringement claim was filed by Basis International Ltd, an Albuquerque-based software company that has marketed its own product under the name “BBX” since 1985, the Wall Street Journal reported.

“The BBX mark is identical to the mark which RIM is allegedly using to presenting its BBX product,” Judge Judge William Johnson ruled in the District Court of New Mexico, later adding “there is sufficient similarity in this case to weigh in favor of Basis.”

The temporary restraining order had been sought by Basis to stop RIM from using the “BBX” trademark during a developers conference in Singapore on Wednesday and Thursday, where RIM was handing out free copies of its oft-discounted BlackBerry PlayBook tablet to attendees.

And indeed, BlackBerry complied with the order, tweeting on Wednesday that the new operating system would be called “BlackBerry 10.”

“RIM doesn’t typically comment on pending litigation, however RIM has already unveiled a new brand name for its next generation mobile platform,” a spokesperson later told the Journal.

The new software is designed to unify BlackBerry’s currently disparate smartphone and tablet operating systems into one coherent platform (much in the way Google is attempting to do with Android Ice Cream Sandwich) and turn it into a cohesive product that can compete with the flashier mobile offerings from Google and Apple.

BlackBerry 10 was first officially unveiled in October at the BlackBerry developer’s conference in San Francisco, the result of over a year of tinkering to merge BlackBerry’s now eight-year old core operating system with the exciting mobile software technology of QNX, another Canadian company BlackBerry purchased for $200 million in April 2010.

Still, there can be little denying Tuesday’s court ruling marked a setback in RIM’s efforts to recast itself as a dynamic mobile device manufacturer.

Not only are customers gravitating toward rival platforms, including RIM’s once reliable enterprise customer base, but the Ontario-based company suffered an exasperating global service outage in October, which resulted in class-action lawsuits from infuriated customers.

Lately, it seemed as though RIM had been making a concerted effort to regain its stride, or at least break out of its funk, introducing BBX followed by a new enterprise mobile management system, BlackBerry Mobile Fusion, in late November.

But now one of those two new pillars of BlackBerry’s future has taken a hit. We’ve reached out to BlackBerry for more information on the name change and will update when we receive a response.

Source:  http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/blackberry-10-born-out-of-lawsuit.php

Trademark Infringement | "Maharishi foundation: Competitor violates trademark"

Maharishi foundation: Competitor violates trademark
The Meditation House's claims about its techniques are designed to confuse the public, the Fairfield group alleges.

By: Jeff Eckhoff
Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


A nonprofit Iowa-based educational foundation tied to the calming meditation teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has injected new stress into the life of a competitor.

Maharishi Foundation USA Inc. of Fairfield this week sued the Meditation House LLC, accusing it of infringing on the foundation’s trademark covering the teaching of “Transcendental Meditation.”

Paperwork filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Des Moines accuses the Meditation House of lying in its advertising about the benefits of “Vedic Meditation.” Claims about the studied health value of those techniques are “false on their face,” according to the lawsuit, and designed to confuse the public with research done on Transcendental Meditation, which has been actively taught in the U.S. for roughly 50 years.

“The Foundation has never had an affiliation or license with the Meditation House nor, on information and belief, has anyone connected with the Meditation House ever taken an authorized course on the TM technique, let alone acquired the skills and knowledge necessary or the authorization from the foundation required to teach it,” the lawsuit says. “The Meditation House’s belief that the parties’ respective meditation services are equivalent is based on a self-serving desire to appropriate the valuable goodwill associated with the foundation’s brand for its own commercial gain.”

A disclaimer on theme ditationhouse.com insists that the company and life coach Jules Green “expressly disclaim any association with Maharishi Foundation Ltd.,” its trademarks or its practices.

Green, a “holistic life coach” who offers workshops in San Diego, New York and Des Moines, on the website lauds the “5000-year-old tradition of Vedic Meditation” and describes how her own meditation “led her to India to study with world-renowned Vedic scholar Thom Knoles in an ashram in the foothills of the Himalayas.”

Green did not return a phone call to the Iowa number listed on her website.

Iowa corporation records show the Meditation House LLC was formed in May 2010 by Jules Green Zubradt. The corporate address listed in state records belongs to an Ankeny home owned by Marilyn Green.

The Maharishi Foundation’s lawsuit accuses Green’s company of false advertising, unfair competition, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false representation, unfair competition and unjust enrichment.

Court papers seek “all profits wrongfully derived by the Meditation House” from its allegedly improper activities, as well as multiple changes in the content of the Meditation House website.

The foundation also seeks a court order requiring that Green’s company notify “each and every customer who purchased services” from the Meditation House that “there is no evidence that the technique taught by the defendant reduces the risk of heart disease or normalizes blood pressure, and there is no published scientific study that demonstrates any health benefit from the technique taught by the defendant.”

Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111130/NEWS/311300051/-1/GETPUBLISHED03scripts/Maharishi-foundation-Competitor-violates-trademark