Patent Infringement Books

Showing posts with label Trademark Infringement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trademark Infringement. Show all posts

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Keyword Trademark Infringement Claim Fails Where Mark is Generic"


By: Brian A. Hall
Source: http://unintellectualproperty.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Ohio denied a motion for reconsideration to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to FRCP 59(e) and held that the “evidence still fails to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether SpinLife’s alleged uses of the three-word phrase “the scooter store” creates a likelihood of confusion necessary to support its affirmative claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and misappropriation.” Plaintiff The Scooter Store, Inc. sued Defendant SpinLife.com, LLC for, among other causes of action, trademark infringement and unfair competition in connection with SpinLife’s purchase of Google AdWords for “the scooter store” and other similar combinations as well as use of the phrase in “metadata” and “meta tags” on its website. The Court previously ruled that “[t]he phrases ‘the scooter store,’ ‘scooter store,’ and other such phrases containing ‘scooter store’ are generic, and Plaintiff TSS has no trademark rights in the use of these phrases.”

Plaintiff sought reconsideration to introduce expert testimony that the phrases are not generic and that instead the consumer public associates them with Plaintiff. Put another way, Plaintiff sought to introduce additional evidence to create an issue of material fact in an effort to avoid invalidation of its THE SCOOTER STORE trademark as generic. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and again recognized that the phrases are generic (interestingly, the Court also mentions the word descriptive, which could change the entire analysis and determination as to trademark rights given the ability to acquire distinctiveness in a descriptive mark).

To the extent the Court found the mark generic, then THE SCOOTER STORE is indeed UnIntellectual Property. However, to the extent the Court found the mark descriptive (bearing in mind the registrations and the presumptions that go along with such registrations), it may not ultimately be UnIP. Regardless, the Court did find no likelihood of consumer confusion given the weakness of the mark and other factors that seem to be common in keyword infringement lawsuits. Needless to say, the Plaintiff probably did not expect a genericness finding that has the potential to do far more damage to its business than an online competitor. My guess is that the Plaintiff will be scooting to an appeal as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the appellate process is more like using a walker than a scooter.


Source: http://unintellectualproperty.com/keyword-trademark-infringement-claim-fails-where-mark-is-generic/

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Sony Sues its Former Spokesperson for Trademark Infringement"


By: Alison Keeley
Source: www.ipbrief.net
Category: Trademark Infringement


Trademark Infringement
Advertisements have always had characteristic spokespersons that are used in a series of ads.  Just think of the Old Spice Guy, Fabio for “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter,” and “Flo” the character in all those Progressive ads, to name a few.  It is clear that these characters and actors can be heavily associated with a particular product and a particular ad campaign.  They appear on billboards, on busses, and in a series of ads.  But what does that mean for the actor in the future?

This question is raised by Sony’s recent lawsuit against Bridgestone tires and the representation of actor Jerry Lambert.  The actor played a character called “Kevin Butler” in a series of ads for PlayStation 3.  In addition to appearing in a series of television commercials, the actor appeared live, in character, at the Electronic Entertainment Expo.  The character even has his own Twitter account.  Sony did clearly invest a lot in “Kevin Butler” and by extension, Jerry Lambert.  But, of course, ad campaigns end and actors may eventually move onto a new ad.  Jerry Lambert went on to be in a Bridgestone tire ad.  The problem?  The characters were playing on a Nintendo Wii in the ad.

Sony, the makers of PlayStation, sued both Bridgestone and Lambert for trademark infringement, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship.  Apparently, Sony claims that it had an exclusivity agreement with Lambert that prevented him from appearing in ads for Nintendo or similar competitors.  While the ad isn’t technically for Nintendo Wii, the actors are playing Mario Kart for pretty much the whole ad, and the promotion allows those who purchase Bridgestone tires to get a Wii console as part of a promotion.

Bridgestone denies that Lambert was playing the “Kevin Butler” character in its ad.  Apparently Lambert’s contract with PlayStation expired three days before the Bridgestone ad aired.  But if Bridgestone and Nintendo are using PlayStation’s character or this violates the exclusivity clause (which, given the unusual situation here, probably depends on the wording of the clause) then Sony has a point.  This also raises the question of how much control a company can have over an actor when it has invested time building an actor into a particular advertising character and associating that actor with its product.   But how much can a company owe an actor’s basic appearance?  In this case, at least, it is clear at least some consumers identify a connection between Lambert and PlayStation.  This article, posted before Sony filed a lawsuit, bears the title “Sony spokesperson Kevin Butler’s latest commercial has him…promoting the Wii?!”

Based on at least one reporter’s impression, Sony may be able to prove that consumers believed that the “Kevin Butler” was in the Bridgestone ads, playing on Lambert’s previous connection with PlayStation.  And while the ad wasn’t exactly for Nintendo products, the fact that the actors were playing on a Nintendo Wii for most of the ad may run afoul of the exclusivity agreement between Lambert and Sony.  But obviously, if the actress who played “Flo” appeared in an All State ad, or that of another similar competitor in the insurance industry, there would be an obvious problem.  The issue will likely ultimately come down to how much the court thinks a company should be able to restrict an actor in order to protect the company’s rights to a character it created.


Source: http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/10/11/sony-sues-its-former-spokesperson-for-trademark-infringement/

Trademark Infringement | "Sony Sues its Former Spokesperson for Trademark Infringement"


By: Alison Keeley
Source: www.ipbrief.net
Category: Trademark Infringement


Trademark Infringement
Advertisements have always had characteristic spokespersons that are used in a series of ads.  Just think of the Old Spice Guy, Fabio for “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter,” and “Flo” the character in all those Progressive ads, to name a few.  It is clear that these characters and actors can be heavily associated with a particular product and a particular ad campaign.  They appear on billboards, on busses, and in a series of ads.  But what does that mean for the actor in the future?

This question is raised by Sony’s recent lawsuit against Bridgestone tires and the representation of actor Jerry Lambert.  The actor played a character called “Kevin Butler” in a series of ads for PlayStation 3.  In addition to appearing in a series of television commercials, the actor appeared live, in character, at the Electronic Entertainment Expo.  The character even has his own Twitter account.  Sony did clearly invest a lot in “Kevin Butler” and by extension, Jerry Lambert.  But, of course, ad campaigns end and actors may eventually move onto a new ad.  Jerry Lambert went on to be in a Bridgestone tire ad.  The problem?  The characters were playing on a Nintendo Wii in the ad.

Sony, the makers of PlayStation, sued both Bridgestone and Lambert for
, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship.  Apparently, Sony claims that it had an exclusivity agreement with Lambert that prevented him from appearing in ads for Nintendo or similar competitors.  While the ad isn’t technically for Nintendo Wii, the actors are playing Mario Kart for pretty much the whole ad, and the promotion allows those who purchase Bridgestone tires to get a Wii console as part of a promotion.

Bridgestone denies that Lambert was playing the “Kevin Butler” character in its ad.  Apparently Lambert’s contract with PlayStation expired three days before the Bridgestone ad aired.  But if Bridgestone and Nintendo are using PlayStation’s character or this violates the exclusivity clause (which, given the unusual situation here, probably depends on the wording of the clause) then Sony has a point.  This also raises the question of how much control a company can have over an actor when it has invested time building an actor into a particular advertising character and associating that actor with its product.   But how much can a company owe an actor’s basic appearance?  In this case, at least, it is clear at least some consumers identify a connection between Lambert and PlayStation.  This article, posted before Sony filed a lawsuit, bears the title “Sony spokesperson Kevin Butler’s latest commercial has him…promoting the Wii?!”

Based on at least one reporter’s impression, Sony may be able to prove that consumers believed that the “Kevin Butler” was in the Bridgestone ads, playing on Lambert’s previous connection with PlayStation.  And while the ad wasn’t exactly for Nintendo products, the fact that the actors were playing on a Nintendo Wii for most of the ad may run afoul of the exclusivity agreement between Lambert and Sony.  But obviously, if the actress who played “Flo” appeared in an All State ad, or that of another similar competitor in the insurance industry, there would be an obvious problem.  The issue will likely ultimately come down to how much the court thinks a company should be able to restrict an actor in order to protect the company’s rights to a character it created.


Source: http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/10/11/sony-sues-its-former-spokesperson-for-trademark-infringement/

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Trademark Infringement Case Against AASP-NJ Dismissed"


By: BodyShop Business news
Source: www.bodyshopbusiness.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


After four years of litigation, United States District Judge Kenneth M. Karas has dismissed most of Rockland Exposition Incorporated's (REI) complaint against the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of New Jersey (AASP-NJ), AASP-NJ board members Tom Elder, Thomas Greco, Glenn Villacari and Thomas Greco Publishing. REI filed suit in 2008 after the association elected not to renew their management contract with REI and its president David McCarey, and moved AASP-NJ’s NORTHEAST Show back to New Jersey.

In an 87-page opinion issued Friday, Sept. 14, Judge Karas dismissed REI's most significant claim – that AASP-NJ and the other defendants infringed on REI's claimed rights in the trademark "NORTHEAST." Therefore, REI's demands on this count for injunctive relief and damages failed. The court also dismissed REI's claims for trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition under New York law.

The court dismissed REI's claims for false and deceptive advertising, trade libel and disparagement; tortious interference with prospective business advantage; and tortious interference with contract with respect to AASP-NJ, Thomas Greco and Thomas Greco Publishing.

“We are extremely happy that this is over,” AASP-NJ President Jeff McDowell said. “It has been a long, painful experience that has taken its toll on many of the dedicated volunteers who serve our association, and we are proud that we took a stand to make sure justice was served.

“There are many people to thank, especially board members Brian Vesley and Joe Amato. Brian has spent countless hours of his own time making sure that AASP-NJ’s interests were being looked after from day one. Joe went way beyond the call of duty to make sure we were protected from an insurance standpoint. I don’t know where we would be without those two individuals. Our association and our industry are indebted to them.”


Source: http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/Article/105100/trademark_infringement_case_against_aaspnj_dismissed.aspx?categoryId=

Monday, October 8, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Apple alleges trademark infringement by Polish online grocer A.pl"

By:  Michael Santo
Source: www.examiner.com 
Category: Trademark Infringement


Apple has previously sued for trademark infringement over such ludicrous things as the GreeNYC campaign's logo or items that use the word "Pod" in their name but that are totally unrelated to MP3 players.

The bulls-eye, this time, is focused on a Polish grocery store. The store is using a .pl top-level domain name, which makes a lot of sense considering its country of origin. The problem lies in the rest of their website's domain name.

The site is A.pl. A brief look at how that might be pronounced would probably clue you in on at least one thing that Apple is - or might be - upset about.

On Tuesday, the Polish patent office said that Apple had filed a complaint against A.pl, accusing the website of riding on its trademark in three ways. The Polish patent website also detailed the complaint against A.pl: its name is too similar, 2) it is trading on Apple's reputation, and 3) it has a logo that is similar to Apple's.

The logo, in fact, appears to be at a subsidiary of A.pl's, at fresh24.pl (seen above), rather than directly at A.pl.

As has been pointed out before by patent and trademark attorneys, to maintain the validity of its trademark, Apple needs to aggressively pursue those that it considers scofflaws, even if a connection to its trademark seems to be on the more ridiculous side.

Polish patent office spokesman Adam Taukert said, "(The) Apple brand is widely recognized and the company says that A.pl, by using the (sic) name that sounds similar, is using Apple's reputation."

Meanwhile, A.pl CEO Radoslaw Celinski rebutted the complaint, saying that "The accusation is ludicrous."


Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/apple-alleges-trademark-infringement-by-polish-online-grocer-a-pl

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Stanley Furniture Sues Whalen, Costco for Trademark Infringement"

By: Karen M. Koenig
Source: www.woodworkingnetwork.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


GREENSBORO, NC - Stanley Furniture has filed suit against Whalen Furniture Manufacturing Inc. and retailer Costco Wholesale Corp. for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair competition in regards to its MyHaven™ furniture collection. MyHaven is part of Stanley Furniture’s Young America division of youth furniture.

Filed Sept. 10 in U.S. District Court in North Carolina, Stanley’s suit claims that Whalen Furniture, doing business as Bayside Furnishings, “willfully and knowingly violated and infringed Stanley’s trademark rights in MyHaven with the intention of deceiving and misleading customers, and defendants have wrongly traded on Stanley’s goodwill and reputation.” The company states it has “suffered actual monetary damage” as a result, though a dollar amount has not yet been determined.

Stanley Furniture stated in court documents that while it promotes the fact that its Young America line of youth furniture is manufactured in America, the “infringing items” by Whalen are “manufactured overseas and in turn sold primarily through big box retailers at discount prices,” resulting in Stanley's claims of unfair competition. Whalen is selling its My Haven bunk beds through Costco.

The suit also specifies that Whalen’s My Haven bunk beds feature design and ornamental elements that are “substantially identical” to those on Stanley’s MyHaven bunk bed. “The intentional copying presumptively establishes secondary meaning for the trade dress associated with Stanley’s MyHaven bunk beds and a likelihood of confusion between Stanley’s genuine products and the infringing My Haven bunk beds,” the transcript states.

The case was referred to mediation on Sept. 11. As of Sept. 12, no reference to the My Haven bunk beds could be found on either Whalen Furniture's, Bayside Furnishings' or Costco's websites.


Source: http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/Stanley-Furniture-Sues-Whalen-Costco-for-Trademark-Infringement-169510676.html

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Samsung Galaxy S3 Ad Slams IPhone 5"


By: cmvlive
Source: http://cmvlive.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


Trademark Infringement
Samsung has made fun of Apple in the past, making fun of Apple fans on queue and calling them sheep. Now, in a Samsung Galaxy S3 ad, it slams Apple’s new iPhone 5, which the Cupertino firm has recently launched a few days ago.

Samsung’s ad reads, “It doesn’t take a genius”, followed by a specs comparison of the smartphones. The S3’s spec sheet fills up most of the ad, while including only a few features of the iPhone 5. In other words, the Samsung Galaxy S3 is made to look extremely superior compared to the new iPhone.

Another ad was launched in The New York Times. The ad’s tagline reads, “On Sept 12th the next big thing was revealed.” Below it is a photo of the Galaxy S3. Underneath the image reads, “The Next Big Thing is Already Here.”

We can’t help but notice that Samsung is venting out its recent defeat against Apple. It’s understandable that the Korean tech giant’s rage, after being ordered by the jury to pay the Cupertino firm more than $1 billion in damages for trademark infringement. All of Samsung’s claims against Apple were dismissed. Although we understand where they’re coming from, we don’t think this will win the hearts of the consumer. It might even affect handset sales.

Apple sold out its existing pre-order stock of the iPhone 5 in the first day it was available for pre-order. Many believe that the new iPhone will be the hottest-selling device in to date. Although Apple’s new flagship is turning out to be a huge success, Samsung isn’t doing too bad with the Galaxy S3. It is also a highly successful device, shipping 20 million units after going on sale for just 100 days. We wish the Korean firm would just focus on making its devices more innovative, rather than slamming its rival.


Source: http://cmvlive.com/technology/gadgets/samsung-galaxy-s3-ad-slams-iphone-5

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Can a Company Trademark the Colors On Its Web Site?"


By: John Villasenor,
Source: www.forbes.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled  that the contrasting red soles on shoes from designer Christian Louboutin are sufficiently distinctive to warrant trademark protection. The ruling adds an important chapter to the history of color trademarks, and has broad implications that go well beyond the fashion industry. To what extent, for example, might colors on web sites be eligible for trademark protection?

A trademark is “a word, phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.” Examples of famous trademarks include the Nike swoosh symbol, the McDonald’s Golden Arches, and the phrase “Intel Inside.” In the landmark 1995 Qualitex ruling involving the color of dry cleaning equipment, the Supreme Court held that U.S. trademark law as established under the 1940s-era Lanham Act “permits the registration of a trademark that consists, purely and simply, of a color.” Color alone, wrote the Court, can at least sometimes “meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark. It can act as a symbol that distinguishes a firm’s goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function.”

Mr. Louboutin started coloring shoe outsoles in the early 1990s, choosing red because he considered it “engaging, flirtatious, memorable and the color of passion.”  Over the subsequent years, the red soles became a widely recognized identifier of the Louboutin brand. “When it comes to women’s shoes made for style rather than walking,” Reuters wrote in 2007, “Christian Louboutin footwear with their distinctive red soles lead the pack, according to a survey of wealthy American consumers.”

In 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Louboutin a trademark  for a “lacquered red sole on footwear,” and in 2011, when the company learned that Yves Saint Laurent was selling shoes with both a red sole and a monochrome red “upper,” it filed a trademark infringement claim in a New York federal district court. After the court refused to grant an injunction against Yves Saint Laurent, Louboutin appealed.

In a September 5 ruling that both Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent described as a victory, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held  that Louboutin’s lacquered red outsole is “a distinctive symbol that qualifies for trademark protection,” but only when contrasted with a different color used for the other visible portions of the shoe. In other words, Yves Saint Laurent’s monochrome red shoes walk free, and Louboutin’s trademark survives, though with a narrower scope.

What does this mean for the ability to trademark colors on web sites? Consider the thick, red, horizontal stripe at the top of CNN’s web site. A person seeing a computer from the other side of a room who might not be able to read the print on the screen would nonetheless be likely to recognize that it was displaying a page from the cnn.com domain. In the context of online news sites, CNN’s red stripe placed across the top of the screen plays an important role in brand identification.

But does it establish trademark rights? The answer turns, among other things, on whether the stripe’s color and placement are distinctive (most likely, yes), whether its use by competitors would create customer confusion (quite possibly), and whether it steers clear of being functional (maybe).

A product feature cannot serve as a trademark “if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.” This functionality doctrine is intended to avoid granting trademarks that would give a single company control over a useful feature, and thus impede competition. Under some circumstances color can have an important functional role – for instance, if it is used to identify the type of medication contained in a gelatin capsule. Preventing a generic drug maker from choosing the same capsule color as the brand name manufacturer could create confusion for both pharmacists and patients.

More subtly and controversially, some courts – including the Second Circuit that issued the Louboutin ruling – have viewed product features that are “aesthetically functional” as ineligible for trademark protection. Even a feature that is not functional in the traditional sense can be aesthetically functional if allowing it to be trademarked “significantly undermines competitors’ ability to compete in the relevant market” .

It could be argued that CNN’s red stripe is not functional in either the traditional utilitarian sense or aesthetically. After all, a competing news site barred from using it could choose to use a green stripe, or no stripe at all. But there is also a case to be made in favor of functionality: Unlike the sole of a shoe, which has a function tied to its non-color attributes, color in a web site can help visitors navigate the site.

Another issue is the limited number of basic colors to choose from when designing a web site, and the limited number of basic shapes they can be used to fill. What would happen if there were no more colors left to trademark? In the 1995 Qualitex ruling, the Supreme Court considered and rejected depletion as an argument against granting trademark protection for colors. At some point, the Court reasoned, color choices become functional and thus ineligible for protection. And, the Court wrote, when “a color serves as a mark, normally alternative colors will likely be available for similar use by others.”

That may have been true for dry cleaning equipment manufacturers in 1995, and for makers of fiberglass insulation in 1985 and outboard motor companies in 1994. But is it well matched to an era when almost every company has a web site, and in some industries, such as online news, or, for that matter, high end shoes and jewelry, there can be dozens or hundreds of competing companies? In this context, the assumptions of the Qualitex Court regarding depletion may warrant reexamination.


Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2012/09/15/can-a-company-trademark-the-colors-on-its-web-site/

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Apple alleges trademark infringement by Polish online grocer"


BY: MICHAEL SANTO
Source: www.examiner.com
Category: Trademark Infringement

Apple has previously sued for trademark infringement over such ludicrous things as the GreeNYC campaign's logo or items that use the word "Pod" in their name but that are totally unrelated to MP3 players.
The bulls-eye, this time, is focused on a Polish grocery store. The store is using a .pl top-level domain name, which makes a lot of sense considering its country of origin. The problem lies in the rest of their website's domain name.
The site is A.pl. A brief look at how that might be pronounced would probably clue you in on at least one thing that Apple is - or might be - upset about.
On Tuesday, the Polish patent office said that Apple had filed a complaint against A.pl, accusing the website of riding on its trademark in three ways. The Polish patent website also detailed the complaint against A.pl: its name is too similar, 2) it is trading on Apple's reputation, and 3) it has a logo that is similar to Apple's.
The logo, in fact, appears to be at a subsidiary of A.pl's, at fresh24.pl (seen above), rather than directly at A.pl.
As has been pointed out before by patent and trademark attorneys, to maintain the validity of its trademark, Apple needs to aggressively pursue those that it considers scofflaws, even if a connection to its trademark seems to be on the more ridiculous side.
Polish patent office spokesman Adam Taukert said, "(The) Apple brand is widely recognized and the company says that A.pl, by using the (sic) name that sounds similar, is using Apple's reputation."
Meanwhile, A.pl CEO Radoslaw Celinski rebutted the complaint, saying that "The accusation is ludicrous."
A date for a hearing has not yet been set.

Source: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5275751898949626712#editor/target=post;postID=5750594095844836774


Monday, September 10, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Apple, Samsung, Reddit, DirecTV: Intellectual Property"


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


If Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s patent litigation is the “thermonuclear war” over smartphone technology and design that co-founder Steve Jobs pledged to his biographer, Noreen Krall is its field marshal.

Krall has become a familiar sight in courtrooms around the world as Apple’s chief litigation counsel. Her greatest victory came Aug. 24, when a California jury ordered Samsung Electronics Co., the biggest smartphone maker, to pay Apple more than $1 billion for infringing patents related to the iPhone.

“There is no historical precedent for what Noreen Krall is doing,” said John Thorne, who ran Verizon Communications Inc.’s intellectual-property team before joining Kellogg Huber in Washington this year. “Good generalship produces results like Noreen has gotten. She’s mastering big decisions, like which law firms to hire, how to manage resources, how much of Tim Cook’s time to take.”

Krall, 47, and her boss, General Counsel Bruce Sewell, have amassed a team of lawyers from inside Apple and some of the top U.S. law firms to fight Samsung, HTC Corp. (2498) and Google’s Motorola Mobility unit over Google’s Android mobile operating system and the smartphones and tablets that run on it.

Her job includes understanding the patent rules and court procedures in more than three dozen jurisdictions, making sure arguments are consistent, providing feedback and keeping her team motivated. She observes her lawyers’ arguments from benches or public seating in the back of courtrooms, leaving with them at the end of the day.

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, said Krall and other officials wouldn’t comment for this story.
Krall, a New York native, was trained as an electrical engineer. Two of her daughters are in college pursuing engineering degrees.

Before moving to Apple, Krall spent five years managing Sun Microsystems Inc.’s 14,000 patents as chief intellectual- property counsel.

Krall joined an Apple team that viewed Android device makers as a threat to its core business of selling distinctively designed consumer electronics at a premium price and with industry-leading profit margins.
She is a founding member of a group of female intellectual- property lawyers called the Chipsters that puts on events to share tips on being powerful women and mothers in male-dominated Silicon Valley.

A finalist this year for the annual Global Counsel Award for intellectual-property lawyers, selected by corporation lawyers and law-firm partners, she’s a shoo-in for next year, said Thorne, the former Verizon lawyer.


Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/apple-samsung-reddit-directv-intellectual-property.html

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Trademark action will shape NZ law"


By: CLAIRE ROGERS
Source: www.stuff.co.nz
Category: Trademark Infringement


Trademark lawyers are gearing up for one of New Zealand's most significant trademark stoushes - over humble insulation material.

Fletcher Building subsidiary Tasman Insulation and German-backed Knauf will square off in the High Court in Auckland over whether Tasman's "Batts" insulation should lose its trademark status.

Knauf - which is facing trademark infringement action from Tasman, is arguing the term has become generic in describing insulation materials.

That is rejected by Tasman, which has held the registered trademark since 1975, and says it will continue to fight to protect the brand value and awareness it has built.

The case, scheduled for September next year, raises the muddy question of exactly when a brand name becomes generic and will set a precedent for future battles over commonly used trademarks.

Ben Cain, solicitor at Knauf's law firm James & Wells, said trademarks were used as a "badge of origin" to signal to consumers that goods were from a particular source.

If a term came to describe the product, rather than its source, "then it can no longer be a trademark". Similar cases had been heard overseas but there was little case law in New Zealand, Cain said.

The Radler case last year, in which the Society of Beer Advocates failed to have DB Breweries' "Radler" mark revoked was of little help, as he believed it had not addressed the meaning of the 2002 Trade Marks Act.

The act changed the threshold for whether a trademark could be revoked, allowing it to be scrapped if it became a common name in public use - rather than in the trade - through the owner's acts or inactivity. Cain said the Radler case did not answer "how is it that a trademark becomes generic? What does common in public use mean? What do we mean by action or inaction?"

The Batts case was "probably the most significant piece of trademark law, certainly in relation to genericism, for a long time, possibly ever".

"This will set the benchmark for years to come," Cain said.

Tasman's lawyers, A J Park, declined to comment.

Penny Catley, partner at Baldwins Intellectual Property, said the case would be "a tricky one".

Proving whether a trademark was generic was complex and subjective. If a business had done all it could to protect its trademark but it had still fallen into generic use, it could argue it should still stand.

In some cases the public might know it was a trademark but still used the term generically and descriptively, Catley said.

The hearing would be a big one, as trademark battles rarely made it to court, she said.

Ad Feedback

"There's not a hell of a lot of case law here . . . It will provide some guidance for us and for other parties who may be in a position of having a well-known and well-used trademark," Catley said.

James & Wells associate Sarah Tallon advised businesses to avoid using their trademarks as descriptive terms, as that would encourage people to use the term when describing similar products.

"If you can't think of any other logical way that people would refer to it, then your trademark is in danger," Tallon said.

Businesses should also be careful to use the "TM" and "R" signs to denote the word or term was a registered trademark, she said, and to strictly police any infringement.

"When it's become a common term it's much harder to claw it back," she said.

Geography mattered, Tallon said, as a term might be generic in one country but distinctive in another.

For example, in the Radler case the term was deemed to be common overseas but not in New Zealand.

"Businesses should also choose unique, non-descriptive terms or brands to trademark, such as the made-up brand Fonterra, as then competitors would have no reason to use it in marketing their products," Tallon said.

However, in some instances descriptive words and terms could become distinctive trademarks, through a business brand building.

The Warehouse - on the face of it a generic, descriptive brand name - was an example, Tallon said.

"The reputation they have generated means that now if anyone says: ‘I'm popping to The Warehouse', everyone knows exactly what they mean."

BATTS BATTLE THE PLAYERS

Tasman Insulation New Zealand, Pink Batts supplier and a Fletcher Building subsidiary, is defending its registered trademark, "Batts".

Knauf Insulation, a subsidiary of German building materials giant Knauf, is seeking to revoke Tasman's "Batts" trademark.

THE LAW

Section 66 of the 2002 Trade Marks Act states a trademark can be revoked if, in consequence of acts or inactivity of the owner, it has become a common name in general public use for a product or service in respect of which it is registered.



Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7642724/Trademark-action-will-shape-NZ-law







Trademark Infringement | "Why Hiring an Attorney May Be in Your Best Interests"


By: PRESS RELEASES
Source: www.businessreviewusa.com
Category: Trademark Infringement



September 08, 2012 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Unique marks are instrumental to the establishment and growth of a thriving business. Savvy businesspeople the world over know the importance of protecting their company's name, slogans and logos from imitators. Every business works hard to develop and capitalize on its reputation and good will, and it is extremely important to keep others from profiting off of that hard work or diluting or diminishing the value of the brand.

In the United States, legally enforceable protection for this type of intellectual property is available through trademark registration. Although you are not required to retain a trademark registration attorney to take advantage of this protection, most trademark applicants do. Why? They are well-versed in the value that quality legal services can add not just to the application process, but to the strength of a trademark over its entire life.

Trademark Basics: What Is a Trademark?

A trademark is, in its most basic form, a brand name or logo. It is a word, phrase, symbol, design or some combination thereof that identifies and distinguishes your goods from all others. When a word, phrase, symbol or design is used to identify and distinguish the source of a service rather than the source of goods, it is referred to as a "service mark." Colloquially, the term "trademark" is used to encompass both trademarks and service marks.

To register a trademark, you must apply to and be approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. As the owner of a trademark, you have the right to enjoin others from infringing upon or diluting your trademark -- and you may even be entitled to monetary relief from anyone who misuses your trademarked material.

Hiring a Trademark Attorney Can Save Time, Money and Trouble

You can file a trademark application on your own, or get one prepared through a discount service. However, what may seem like a good way to cut down on upfront costs can quickly transform into an ill-conceived money pit--in the end, you get what you pay for

For one thing, hiring a skilled attorney maximizes your likelihood of obtaining approval for your trademark during the initial filing. The approval process is similar to an adversarial court proceeding: when you file, government employees will review your documents for deficiencies, conflicts and other issues, and refuse registration if they find any. The fact is, the vast majority of trademark applications are initially denied registration. An experienced trademark attorney can help you avoid most of the common causes for refusal, and can help you navigate your way through a refusal if you happen to get one. As much as meeting all of the technical requirements, your application must be strategically tailored to clearly and precisely identify the goods or services to which the mark will ultimately apply. An attorney can help you draft a thorough and persuasive application that not only stands the best chances of getting approved on the first try, but that also maximizes the scope of the protection you get once your mark is registered. Rapid approval will allow you to aggressively enforce your trademark as you introduce it into the stream of commerce and begin building the good will associated with the trademark -- and it also saves you the costs and fees associated with reapplying, which can be quite high.

One of the most critical elements to establishing a trademark, and one of the most likely to cause problems in an application, is selecting a proper name, logo or slogan in the first place. There are dozens of rules and regulations restricting what kinds of words and phrases can be registered and protected as trademarks. For example, only "fanciful," "arbitrary" and "suggestive" names can be registered, while those that are generic or merely descriptive cannot. A seasoned trademark attorney can help you to evaluate the trade name or mark that you have selected, or can guide you in making a selection, so that you don't invest in a trademark that you can never legally register and protect.

An attorney can also prevent costly legal problems by conducting a comprehensive search of federal registrations, state registrations and "common law" unregistered trademarks before you file for trademark protections. This type of search is important because not all legally-protected trademarks are federally registered; such marks do not appear in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Electronic Search System database. Trademarks similar to yours that are not federally-registered could cause your application to be rejected -- or even worse, land you as the defendant in an infringement lawsuit down the road. You need someone who is skilled at ferreting out these kinds of potential conflicts long before you invest substantial money in registering your trademark and developing your brand.

At the most basic level, you are seeking a trademark in order to establish range of intellectual property rights. Another advantage of hiring an attorney is the impact an experienced advocate will have on these rights. For instance, a trademark is only applicable to certain goods and services; an attorney can help you come up with the best way to describe your goods and services in your application such that you will enjoy the broadest, most well-defined protections available to you in the marketplace. Remember, your goal is to grow and use your trademark for the lifetime of your business, so the scope of your protection is something that needs to be carefully addressed from the very beginning of the process.

Finally, an attorney is able to assist with the enforcement of your trademark rights. Once your application is approved, it is up to you to protect your trademark rights -- an attorney empowered to act through the courts can take action against any individual or business that threatens to improperly replicate your mark or otherwise diminish its value.

Source: http://www.businessreviewusa.com/press_releases/trademark-issues-why-hiring-an-attorney-may-be-in-your-best-interests

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Education Companies Settle Claims of Copyright and Trademark Infringement against Several Textbook Distributors"

By: Cengage Learning
Source: www.sacbee.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


STAMFORD, Conn., Sept. 4, 2012 -- /PRNewswire/ -- Four leading education companies, Cengage Learning, Inc., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Pearson Education, Inc. and McGraw-Hill Education, today announced they have settled five unconnected matters involving copyright and trademark infringement claims against companies relating to the sale of counterfeit textbooks.  The five separate settlements call for the combined payment of more than $2.6 million dollars and agreements not to engage in any infringement going forward. The five distributors agreeing to settle the publishers' claims are: Kentwood Industries in California, Texas Book Company in Texas, Sterling Educational Media in Florida, Davis Textbook in California and ABSnext Corporation (formerly known as Budgetext Corporation) in Arkansas.

The settlements came about after an intensive investigation by the education companies revealed a large wave of counterfeit textbooks being distributed in the United States.  The investigation further revealed that among the sources used by the textbook distributors to acquire their books were overseas suppliers identified as being a source of counterfeit textbooks.

"We hope that these settlements send a strong message that textbook publishers will not allow those who profit from the sale of counterfeit works to pocket that money," said Matt Oppenheim, of Oppenheim + Zebrak, LLP who represented Cengage Learning, Wiley, Pearson and McGraw-Hill. "These companies are continuing to enforce their rights and do not intend to allow others to sell infringing copies of their textbooks without facing the consequences of doing so."  

While the education companies have settled claims against these five distributors, they are currently pursuing action against other groups of individuals and companies that engaged in similar conduct.

About Cengage Learning Cengage Learning is a leading provider of innovative teaching, learning and research solutions for the academic, professional and library markets worldwide. The company's products and services are designed to foster academic excellence and professional development, increase student engagement, improve learning outcomes and deliver authoritative information to people whenever and wherever they need it. Through the company's unique position within both the library and academic markets, Cengage Learning is providing integrated learning solutions that bridge from the library to the classroom. Cengage Learning's brands include Brooks/Cole, Course Technology, Delmar, Gale, Heinle, National Geographic Learning, South-Western and Wadsworth, among others. Cengage Learning is headquartered in Stamford, CT. For more information on Cengage Learning please visit www.cengage.com.

About McGraw-Hill Education McGraw-Hill Education is a content, software and services-based education company that draws on its more than 100 years of educational expertise to offer solutions, which improve learning outcomes around the world.  McGraw-Hill is the adaptive education technology leader with the vision for creating a highly personalized learning experience that prepares students of all ages for the world that awaits.  The company has offices across North America, India, China, Europe, the Middle East and South America, and makes its learning solutions available in more than 65 languages. For additional information, visit www.mheducation.com.

About Pearson Education Pearson, the world's leading learning company, has global reach and market-leading businesses in education, business information and consumer publishing (NYSE: PSO).  The company provides innovative print and digital education materials, including personalized learning programs such as MyLab/Mastering, education services including custom publishing, and content-independent platforms including the EQUELLA digital repository and Pearson LearningStudio online learning platform

About Wiley Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., has been a valued source of information and understanding for more than 200 years, helping people around the world meet their needs and fulfill their aspirations.  Wiley's core businesses include scientific, technical, medical and scholarly (STMS) journals, encyclopedias, books and online products and services; professional/trade books, subscription products, training materials, online applications and Web sites; and educational materials for undergraduate and graduate students and lifelong learners. Wiley's global headquarters are located in Hoboken, N.J., with operations in the U.S., Europe, Asia, Canada and Australia. The company's Web site can be accessed at www.wiley.com. The company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbols JWa and JWb.


Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/04/4784680/education-companies-settle-claims.html

Trademark Infringement | "Fred Perry settles trademark dispute with Topshop"

By: Business week
Source: http://menmedia.co.uk
Category: Trademark Infringement



Lawyers in Manchester have helped fashion label Fred Perry win damages against Topshop's owner following a trademark infringement of its iconic logo.

Roy Crozier, joint head of intellectual property at Clarke Willmott, and his assistant Andrew Stone issued High Court proceedings against Arcadia Group after the retailer used a laurel wreath - similar to Fred Perry's iconic emblem - on a pink knitted jumper.

The Topshop jumper even caused confusion among Twitter followers who asked where they could buy the Fred Perry top.

Arcadia admitted that it did infringe Fred Perry’s trade mark rights and, as part of the settlement, paid damages and legal costs to Fred Perry and agreed not to sell the product in the future.

Mr Crozier said: “This was one of the clearest cases of trade mark infringement I have come across in the fashion industry.

“The laurel wreath is a famous trademark and clearly synonymous with Fred Perry, which has been using the motif for 60 years

“We had an extremely strong case in the first instance, and the confusion regarding the top was clear to see on Twitter, where people were asking where they could purchase the Fred Perry jumper.

“We tried to settle with Arcadia months ago but finally had to issue High Court proceedings to reach a settlement.”

He added: “It's not unusual for brands to take inspiration from each other, but this was an unusual case where a famous trademark was used.”

A spokesperson from Fred Perry, a brand launched by Stockport-born tennis champion Fred Perry in 1952, said: “We will not hesitate to enforce our intellectual property rights when they are infringed.”

A Topshop spokesperson said: "Topshop takes very seriously the protection of its own intellectual property rights and accordingly affords all due respect to the intellectual property rights of others.

"Topshop is very pleased that this matter has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both parties"


Source: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/professionals/s/1588085_fred-perry-settles-trademark-dispute-with-topshop

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "China to levy heavier fines for trademark infringement"


By: admin
source: http://nvonews.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


Trademark Infringement
China is expected to increase the ceiling of fines imposed on trademark infringement from half a million yuan ($78,800) to one million yuan, authorities said.

Zhang Jianhua, an official, said at a conference that legislators were planning to hand out heavier penalties in the latest revisions to China’s Trademark Law, reported Xinhua.

Repeated violations of the Trademark Law will face heavier punishment, Zhang said. He added trademark registrations will become more efficient under the latest amendment to the law.

China adopted its Trademark Law in August 1982. Two amendments to the law were adopted in 1993 and 2001.

China has the world’s largest number of registered trademarks, which totalled 7.17 million at the end of June, and valid trademark registrations, which totalled 6.09 million, according to official statistics.

China has had the world’s most trademark applications since 2002 when its trademark applications reached 300,000.

Source: http://nvonews.com/2012/09/04/china-to-levy-heavier-fines-for-trademark-infringement/

Monday, September 3, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Ohio State Joins Schools Claiming Trademark Infringement on Apparel, Cookies and Vulgar T-Shirts"


By: MOLLY BLOOM
Source: http://stateimpact.npr.org
Category: Trademark Infringement


Patent Infringement
Ohio State University makes a lot of money selling Ohio t-shirts and other licensed merchandise, $8.9 million last year to be exact. It doesn’t take kindly to private companies trying to get a piece of that action.

This summer, the school sued a Columbus company called Skreened for infringing on its trademarks by selling t-shirts with football coach Urban Meyer’s face on them, among other things. Michael Gallagher, the lawyer representing the company, declined to comment on the case.

Collegiate licensing is a $2.7 billion a year business, according to the Collegiate Licensing Company, one of the largest collegiate licensing agencies in the U.S. And Ohio State isn’t the only school looking out for its assets.

The University of Kansas was awarded $127,000 in 2008 after suing a local company for selling t-shirts that infringed on the school’s trademarks. Earlier this year, West Virginia University successfully sued a company selling t-shirts with the school’s colors and slogans such as “West F***** Virginia” and “I Only Sleep with West Virginia Fans.” In that case, the company agreed to stop selling the shirts but no monetary damages were awarded.

And earlier this month the University of Alabama sent a cease and desist order to a Tuscaloosa, Ala., bakery selling cookies with a red “A” on them. The school claimed the cookies violated the school’s licensing agreement. (The school later backed down and said it would “allow” the bakery to continue to sell the cookies.)

Source: http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/08/28/ohio-state-joins-state-schools-claiming-trademark-infringement-on-apparel-cookies-and-vulgar-t-shirts/

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Ford Sued By Inventor for Infringing Fuel Injection Patent in F-150"


By: Bloomberg
Source: www.nitrobahn.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


On August 29th Thursday, TMC Fuel Injection System LLC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia against Ford Motor Company. Ford Motor Co. was accused in a lawsuit of infringing a 2008 patent covering a fuel-injection system in its F-150 trucks. TMC claims that Ford started selling vehicles including F-150 which was powered by an EcoBoost engine that used the system after telling the inventor engineer Shou L. Hou that the company had no interest in the technology, according to the complaint filed yesterday in federal court in Philadelphia by TMC Fuel Injection System LLC.

The complaint also asserted that Ford had began the discussions with Hou in December 2004; which was more than two years after an application was filed to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the technology, which increases performance but simultaneously reduces fuel consumption by up to 35 percent. TMC described Ford’s action as “willful and deliberate” infringement” and is looking for a halt to any infringement, as well as compensatory and triple damages because it has been “irreparably harmed”. On the other side, Ford’s spokesman for Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford, Todd Nissen said that the company had “only just heard about the lawsuit,” and would refrain from commenting at this point of time.

It was last year when Ford had introduced its first EcoBoost engine for F- Series pickups. The trucks which were equipped with that engine accounted for 42 percent of the model line’s trade sales in the month of July; the company also said that its latest sale statement will be issued on 1 August. Ford’s F-150 also comes with a energy efficient EcoBoost engine. Introduced in 2009, EcoBoost, uses direct fuel injection and turbo charging to increase fuel economy.

source: http://www.nitrobahn.com/news/ford-sued-by-inventor-for-infringing-fuel-injection-patent-in-f-150/a

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Courthouse News Services"


By: KEVIN KOENINGER
Source: http://www.courthousenews.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


     (CN) - Julia Child's foundation and a home appliance-maker filed dueling lawsuits over whether the maker of the Thermador oven can use the legendary chef's name and image without violating trademarks.

     BSH Home Appliances, which makes Bosch, Thermador and Gaggenau home appliances, sued the Julia Child Foundation for Gastronomy and the Culinary Arts in Boston Federal Court on Aug. 24.

     Child's foundation responded Tuesday with two federal lawsuits in Los Angeles, one against BSH and the other against the DGWB Advertising firm.

     BSH seeks declaratory judgment that it can use Child's name and image in its ads without violating her trademarks.

     It claims that "Ms. Child's preference for and use of Thermador products, both on the set of her popular television show 'the French Chef' and in her personal kitchen, is well-known and widely documented. Plaintiff is informed ... that Ms. Child's personal kitchen was donated to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., upon her passing, and remains on display to this day much as it appeared in her Massachusetts home, including her Thermador oven.

     "Plaintiff has used images of Ms. Child and references to the well-known historical fact of her use of Thermador products in various media, including on its website and on its social media pages. These uses do not state or imply any endorsement by Ms. Child of Thermador products. Rather, plaintiff's use of these photos and references to Julia Child's name and use of Thermador products reflect on the long history, significance and influence of Thermador products on American society and culture, and Ms. Child's documented and well-known use of these products."

     BSH claims it filed its complaint in response to a letter from Child's foundation, in which the foundation "claimed exclusive ownership and control of the name, image, likeness and celebrity identity of the late Julia Child ... [and that] plaintiff's use of the Child publicity rights and Child IP rights constitutes copyright infringement, trademark infringement and a post-mortem violation of Julia Child's right of publicity."

     But BSH claims that its "use of the image and name of Julia Child are not directly connected to the sale of any merchandise, but rather are factual references to Julia Child's well-known use of Thermador products, placed in proper context, including on a timeline chronicling the company's history and in the 'Our Heritage' section of the Thermador website."

     The complaint continues: "The timeline on Thermador's website chronicles important events in the company's history, dating back to its founding in 1916. The reference to Ms. Child appears around the 1970 mark of the timeline, and states that 'Julia Child uses Thermador in her critically acclaimed PBS TV Series.' It is accompanied by an image of Ms. Child on the set of her PBS television show.

     "Another reference on the timeline states: '2001 - Julia Child donates her kitchen to the Smithsonian, further cementing the brand's place in popular American culture.'

     "Thermador's social media pages include other factual references to Ms. Child. For example, Thermador's Pinterest.com page states 'Julia Child had Thermador appliances in her beloved kitchen.' Similarly, Thermador's facebook.com page includes a timeline, which includes an entry stating that '1970 - Julia Child uses Thermador in her critically acclaimed PBS TV Series.'"

     BSH seeks declaratory judgment that its use of Child's name and image does not infringe upon any trademarks or copyrights, and that because Child lived in Massachusetts when she died, Massachusetts state law should be applied to any future claims of infringement.

Source:www.google.com/urlsa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=4&ved=0CDgQqQIwAw&url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/29/49753.htm&ei=icI-UL6rO4rVrQfl54CIDg&usg=AFQjCNHemCSeAjPDk5t2eMtobrJAdSc-LA&sig2=4g1DlmqDWPAu_yUvWhdjxA




Thursday, July 19, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "HomeVestors Files Suit against Trademark Infringers"

By : Market Watch 
Source : http://www.marketwatch.com 
Category : Trademark Infringement 

HomeVestors of America, Inc. ("HomeVestors"), known for its registered trademark We Buy Ugly Houses®, has been diligent in protecting its trademarks. HomeVestors vigorously enforces its campaign to stop third parties from using its federally registered trademarks as part of their domain names and on their websites without being authorized to do so.

Recently, HomeVestors filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Case No. 3:12-cv-01850-P, against Duane LeGate and House Buyer Network, Inc. alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of the federal Lanham Act, as well as trademark infringement, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, injury to business reputation, and breach of contract under Texas common law. In this lawsuit, HomeVestors seeks its (1) actual, treble, and exemplary damages from Defendants, (2) a preliminary injunction, and after trial, a permanent injunction, and (3) HomeVestors' attorneys' fees and costs of court.

Source : http://www.marketwatch.com/story/homevestors-files-suit-against-trademark-infringers-2012-07-17

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Cupcake kerfuffle: Sprinkles settles trademark infringement case "

By:



There’s room for only one cupcake company called Sprinkles, and that’s the one in Beverly Hills, a newly settled lawsuit seems to suggest.

The popular chain, which first launched in Southern California in 2005, recently settled a trademark infringement lawsuit against a Fairfield, Conn., bakery that was calling itself Pink Sprinkles.

That business, which opened in 2009, is now calling itself the Pink Cupcake Shack. Its website calls the shop “Fairfield’s first cupcake boutique in Brick Walk Promenade” and touts the staff’s decades of experience.

“The client had no idea there was anything called Sprinkles Cupcakes, because there were no stores here,” said Alan Neigher, an attorney for Pink Cupcake Shack. “It was an innocent mistake, and it was resolved amicably.”

Sprinkles filed suit in July against the Fairfield store in federal court in New Haven. Sprinkles claimed that the dueling names were “likely to cause confusion in the marketplace” and “damage Sprinkles and injure its reputation in the trade and with the public.”

Indeed, Sprinkles has worked hard to nurture its image. Founder Candace Nelson is a judge on Cupcake Wars, a reality show on the Food Network. Her cupcakes have been featured on "The Oprah Winfrey Show," "The Today Show," "Entertainment Tonight" and more.

The chain sells Sprinkles cupcake mix inWilliams-Sonomastores, including several in Connecticut, according to the suit.

In addition to existing stores in New York, Chicago and several other cities, Sprinkles said in the suit that it plans to expand to Boston, Philadelphia, Toronto, London and Paris. There's even a Sprinkles truck.
And cupcakes are a high stakes game. In recent years, the baked goods have become so trendy that a favorite activity of food trend watchers is guessing what the “next cupcake” will be.

With so much competition, Sprinkles has been a fearsome protector of its name. In 2008, the company went after Montecito, Calif., baker Sprinkled Pink Cupcake Couture, sending a letter demanding a name change the day after the store opened.

An attorney for Sprinkles could not be reached for comment.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-sprinkles-cupcake-settlement-20120208,0,707139.story