Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Nordstrom Consulting, Inc. v. M&S Techs., Inc., No. 06 C 3234, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2008) (Darrah, J.).*

Judge Darrah granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff and counter-defendant (collectively "NCI") developed visual eye chart software that defendants and counter-plaintiffs (collective "M&S") incorporated into their visual acuity system which was sold to ophthalmalic distributors and end users. For a period of time, the parties worked together, selling and servicing product and sharing office space. But eventually the relationship broke down and NCI began selling a competing system. The parties charged each other with various IP claims and related state law claims. Each of the IP-related claims is addressed below.

Copyright Infringement

The Court held that NCI was the sole owner of the copyright and that its principal Nordstrom was the sole author of the copyrighted software. M&S argued that its principal Marino contributed to the software. But the Court held that Nordstrom wrote the software and Marino only offered direction and ideas.

The Court granted M&S summary judgment for all copyrighted software sales during the terms of the parties' agreements, but not as to sales outside of the agreement dates. And the Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement as to M&S's new software package "Sports Vision Testing" ("SVT"). NCI argued that SVT was an infringing derivative work. But NSI failed to produce evidence or expert testimony refuting M&S's evidence that it created its SVT software independent of NCI's software using clean room procedures.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA")

NCI alleged that M&S violated the DMCA by circumventing protections on a computer containing the software code in order to aid an NCI licensee of the code. Because the code was accessed to aid a licensee, NCI could not show that the password had been bypassed for the purpose of infringing NCI's copyright. The Court, therefore, granted summary judgment for M&S. 

The Court also denied summary judgment as to M&S's claim that NCI violated the DMCA by accessing a portion of M&S's computer system for which NCI lacked authorization and passwords. Summary judgment was not appropriate because the parties disputed whether NCI accessed the computers and whether the accessed material was copyrighted.

Lanham Act

The Court denied M&S summary judgment on NCI's Lanham Act false advertising claim and its related state law claims. M&S argued that it had not made any statements likely to cause customer confusion. But NCI countered that M&S stated in advertising that it had used the same system for five years. NCI argued that the statement must be false because M&S switched to its new SVT software during that time. Because of these disputed facts, summary judgment was not appropriate.

Illinois Trade Secret Act

The parties agreed that prior to terminating their relationship, NCI took various information from M&S's offices and computers. But the parties disagreed as to whether M&S took reasonable measures to protect the information's confidentiality. The parties agreed that M&S password protected the information. But NCI argued passwords alone were not enough and suggested other protections that allegedly could and should have been employed. The Court held that password protection alone was not per se insufficient. But the Court required more information regarding M&S's actions and the feasibility of alternative protections before it could rule on summary judgment.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Allen Bros., Inv. v. AB Foods LLC, No. 06 C 1269, 2008 WL 345600 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2008) (Andersen, J.).

Judge Andersen granted defendant AB Foods summary judgment of likelihood of confusion and dismissed plaintiff Allen Brothers’ Lanham Act claim and related state law trademark infringement claim. Allen Brothers, a seller of gourmet meats, argued that AB Foods infringed its AB trademark by using it to sell AB Foods’ gourmet meats. The Court held that this was the rare case that was so one-sided as to warrant summary judgment that there was no likelihood of confusion, even though AB Foods uses its AB mark in direct competition with Allen Brothers: 

• The marks were not similar because Allen Brothers always used its full name along with its AB mark;
  
• Allen Brothers’ customers are sophisticated meat purchasers, as evidenced by Allen Brothers’ high prices;
  
• The strength of Allen Brothers’ mark is in its full name, not just AB;
  
• Allen Brothers’ produced no evidence of actual confusion; and
  
• Allen Brothers produced no evidence that AB Foods intended to pass off its meats as Allen Brothers products.

The Court, therefore, granted AB Foods summary judgment and dismissed the case.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gabbanelli Accordions & Imports, L.L.C. v. Italo-Am. Accordion Mfg. Co. et al., No. 02 C 4048, 2008 WL 351860 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2008) (Zagel, J.)*

Judge Zagel granted plaintiff summary judgment of trademark and trade dress infringement regarding plaintiff’s “wildly colorful” and “heavily ornamental” accordions. The Court awarded plaintiff approximately $500,000 in damages, attorneys fees and costs. Defendants – Italian entities that sold accordions in the United States – chose not to participate in the case. Instead, they filed an Italian case after this case was filed, but before defendants were served pursuant to the Hague Convention. The Court previously stayed a portion of the case pending the outcome of the Italian case, but noted that the stay may have been a mistake. Years after filing, the Italian case had not been resolved and defendants failed to participate in the U.S. proceeding based upon a belief that the Italian proceeding controlled. For example, defendants admitted personal jurisdiction when they failed to respond to jurisdictional Requests for Admission and instead of filing a motion to dismiss, defendants sent the Court an unsupported letter listing their complaints with the case and the Court’s jurisdiction over them. By failing to participate in discovery and not following the Court’s rules, defendants preempted whatever ability they might have had to make their case.

Practice tip: Participate and play by the rules. Even if you cannot or will not afford counsel, you must answer discovery, respond to motions and appear when required to. Failing to participate will not insulate you from judgment.

* Click here for more on this case in the Blog’s archives.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Palantir.net, Inc. v. Palantir Techs., Inc., No. 07 C 4271, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2007) (Guzman, J.).*

Judge Guzman granted defendant's motion to transfer this Lanham Act case to the Northern District of California ("N.D. Cal.") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  Defendant's principal place of business was in the N.D. Cal. and defendant had an earlier-filed case against plaintiff pending in the N.D. Cal.  The Court, therefore, held that the convenience of the parties and the witnesses, as well as the interests of justice, were best served by transferring the case to the N.D. Cal.

*  Click here for a copy of the case.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Junction Solutions, LLC v. MBS Dev., Inc., No. 06 C 1632, 2007 WL 4234091 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2007) (Gottschall, J.).*

Judge Gottschall dismissed defendant’s Lanham Act false representation and Consumer Fraud Act claims.** Both claims were based on letters allegedly sent by plaintiff to a third party containing false statements about defendant. The Court dismissed the Lanham Act claim because the allegedly false statements were not made in plaintiff’s marketing materials and were not about defendant’s products. Similarly, a letter to one third party was not the general commercial communication required by the Consumer Fraud Act.

* Click here for more on this case in the Blog’s archives.

** The Court also considered other non-IP claims.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported on the latest round of the Sugar v. Splenda fight (click here for the article).  An initial hearing was scheduled for yesterday in the Central District of California regarding the suit five U.S. sugar companies -- American Sugar Refining Inc., C&H Sugar Co. (owned by American Sugar), Imperial Sugar Co., Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers Inc. and Western Sugar Cooperative (collectively "Sugar Companies") -- brought against Johnson & Johnson's McNeil Nutritionals ("McNeil") which makes Splenda.  Splenda is a sugar substitute which McNeil advertises with the tagline, "tastes like sugar."  The Sugar Companies alleged that the "tastes like sugar" advertising campaign was false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act.  And they further alleged that McNeil continued its advertisements despite knowledge that consumers were confused.  McNeil countered that consumers were not misled by its advertisements.

The parties have engaged in various out-of-court disputes as well as this action and the two cases already settled, one in France and one in the United States.  For example, the parties maintain opposing websites regarding Splenda:  McNeil's is www.splendatruth.com and the Sugar Companies maintain www.truthaboutsplenda.com. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

WMH Tool Group, Inc. v. Woodstock Int’l, Inc., No. 07 C 3885, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2007) (Darrah, J.).*

Judge Darrah denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff WMH Tool Group’s (“WMH”) Lanham Act dilution claim and its related Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“Consumer Fraud Act”) claim. WMH registered a trade dress for the color white on its woodworking and metal working products, sold under its JET brand. WMH alleged that its white trade dress was both famous and exclusively associated with WHM’s tools. WMH further alleged that defendant Woodstock International (“Woodstock”) diluted WMH’s trade dress by selling woodworking and metal working tools in WMH’s distinctive white color under Woodstock’s Shop Fox brand. Similarly, WMH alleged that defendant Grizzly Industrial (“Grizzly”) diluted WMH’s trade dress by selling woodworking and metal working tools in WMH’s distinctive white color under Grizzly’s Grizzly or Grizzly Industrial brands. 

Defendants argued that WMH did not state a claim for dilution because the complaint did not specify the date when WMH’s trade dress became famous and that defendants’ allegedly infringing sales began after that date. But the Court held that notice pleading did not require that WMH plead specific dates. It was enough that WMH pled that the trade dress had become famous and that defendants' infringement of the trade dress occurred after the fame was acquired.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mullen v. Society of Stage Directors & Choreographers, No. 06 C 6818, 2007 WL 2892654 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2007) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar granted in part defendant United Scenic Artists’ (“USA”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment (“DJ”) claims and denied all defendants’ motions seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ defamation claim. Plaintiffs are the various production heads of the Chicago production of the musical “Urinetown!” (“Chicago Production”). The Chicago Production was performed pursuant to a license from Blue Dog Entertainment, LLC. But despite that license, plaintiffs each received a cease and desist letter from counsel for defendants (the heads of production of the Broadway Urinetown! production (“Broadway Production”) and their unions USA and the Society of Stage Directors & Choreographers (“SSDC”). The letter warned that plaintiffs willfully copied copyrighted aspects of the Broadway Production and attempted to pass off the Chicago Production as the award-winning Broadway Production. Defendants demanded an accounting of revenues from the Chicago Production in order to calculate damages. Defendants also held a press conference during which they publicly stated that the plaintiffs “plagiarized” the Broadway Production. Plaintiffs responded by filing suit seeking declaratory judgments that the Chicago Production did not infringe any of plaintiffs’ copyrights and that it was not Lanham Act passing off. And based upon the press conference, plaintiffs included a defamation claim.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Aguila Records, Inc. v. Federico, No. 07 C 3993, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Lanham Act, copyright infringement and breach of contract complaint. Plaintiff, a music management and recording agency, alleged that it entered into an oral agreement with individual defendant Sergio Federico (“Federico”), a musician, giving plaintiff exclusive rights to Federico’s and his musical group Alacranes Musical’s (“Alacranes”) recordings. Shortly after agreeing to a ten-year extension of the agreement, plaintiff alleged that Federico quit the Alacranes and joined defendant musical group Aliados de la Sierra (“Sierra”). Plaintiff claimed that defendants infringed its scorpion trademark by using scorpion logos in their promotional material. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants violated plaintiff's copyright in the song “Por Tu Amor” – click here to watch the Alacranes’ music video on YouTube – by performing the song without authorization. Defendants argued that plaintiff failed to state its claims because several of plaintiff’s allegations were false, unsupported or otherwise incorrect. But the Court held that plaintiff had sufficiently pled its claims and that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion was not the appropriate vehicle for evaluating the strength of the evidence.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., No. 05 C 1171, 2007 WL 2875232 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 28, 2004) (Kendall, J.)

Judge Kendall granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss its Lanham Act case with prejudice and awarded defendant its costs but not its fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The Court held that attorney’s fees were not warranted because the case and its dismissal after substantial fact discovery were not exceptional. Plaintiff dismissed its case because of two significant events which plaintiff believed reduced its likelihood of success.

            First, during discovery Congress passed the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (“TDRA”)* which changed the definition of “famous” such that fame within a niche market was no longer sufficient for dilution. Plaintiff was not certain it could prove fame outside its market. Second, defendant changed the trade dress, and particularly the color scheme, of its accused SKIL line of power tools. Plaintiff believed that defendant’s new trade dress was less similar to plaintiff’s and, therefore, plaintiff’s case was more difficult to prove. The Court accepted plaintiff’s reasoning and, therefore, held that the case was not exceptional. The Court did, however, award costs, which plaintiff had originally agreed it would pay.

* For more on the TDRA, click here for the Seattle Trademark Lawyer’s coverage of the TDRA this week in honor of the TDRA’s first anniversary.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Top Tobacco, L.P. v. North Atlantic Op. Co., No. 08 C 950, 2007 WL 2688452 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly previously granted defendant summary judgment on all claims in this trademark infringement case regarding plaintiff’s “TOP and “Fresh-Top Canister” marks and awarded defendant’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).* The Court reduced the rates charged by defendant’s counsel Kirkland & Ellis’ summer associates from $185 to $125, more in line with paralegal rates. The Court acknowledged that Kirkland & Ellis’s attorneys showed skill “commensurate with its… high rates,”** but reduced Kirkland & Ellis’s rates because that skill did not result in the time savings (as required by the Seventh Circuit). Kirkland & Ellis billed roughly 30% more hours than plaintiff’s counsel. The Court, therefore, reduced Kirkland & Ellis’s rates to those charged by plaintiff’s counsel.

* Click here to read more about this case and related cases in the Blog’s archives.

** Having worked with Kirkland & Ellis’s lead counsel on this matter, Paul Garcia, I can confirm the Court’s praise.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Montrose Wholesale Candies & Sundries, Inc., No. 03 C 5311 & 03 C 4844, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 27, 2007) (Cole, J.).*

Judge Cole recommended granting plaintiff Lorillard Tobacco’s (“Lorillard”) petition for attorneys fees, but reduced the requested fees by about $80,000. Lorillard received a default judgment against defendants in 2006 and, as a result, brought this petition seeking its fees and costs. The Court’s opinion is an excellent guide for anyone preparing a fee petition. The Court refused to consider Lorillard’s costs because although Lorillard submitted a list of costs, it did not total the costs or discuss them in its petition and supporting declaration. Next, the Court accepted most of the costs for the four attorneys whose billing rates were explained in the supporting declaration, but denies any fees for the other nineteen people whose fees were not explained in the declaration. The Court notes that these nineteen people could be partners, associates or paralegals, but the Court cannot assess the reasonableness of their rates or billed activities without knowing their roles. And even for the four, the Court notes that it would have preferred some explanation of each attorney’s experience in past Lanham Act cases, in order to judge whether the attorneys’ billing rates were commensurate with their experience. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Central Mfg., Inc. v. George Brett, __ F.3d __, Slip Op. (7th Cir. Jul. 9, 2007).

The Seventh Circuit upheld Judge Coar's cancellation of plaintiff's "Stealth" mark for use with baseball bats.  The result is not that surprising in light of the fact that plaintiff had not been able to provide any evidence that it used the Stealth mark for baseball bats prior to defendant, and Hall of Famer, George Brett's and his company Brett Brothers Sports International's first sale of a Stealth bat in 1999 (plaintiff filed a mark application for Stealth in connection with baseball bats in 2001).  Additionally, according to the Seventh Circuit plaintiff is controlled by Leo Stoller who is, according to the Seventh Circuit, a "hyperactive trademark litigator."  The Seventh Circuit also discussed the frivolous nature of most of Stoller's cases:

In fact, Stoller's cases have generally proven so frivolous and wasteful of court resources that since this appeal was filed the Northern District of Illinois has enjoined him or any of his companies from filing any new civil action in the district's courts without first obtaining the court's permission.

 Stoller has appealed the Executive Committee's injunction, and the Executive Committee has already denied Stoller's first request to file a new case in the Northern District.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Steiner Indus., Inc. v. Auburn Mfg., Inc., No. 07 C 668, 2007 WL 1834176 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 22, 2007) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah denied declaratory judgment defendant Auburn Manufacturing’s (“Auburn”) motion to dismiss. Auburn argued that plaintiff’s (collectively “DJ Plaintiffs”) suit improperly anticipated Auburn’s complaint which alleged Lanham Act claims of false designation and false advertising, as well as related state law claims. Auburn filed its complaint in the District of Maine within a week of DJ Plaintiffs’ filing. Auburn alleged that DJ Plaintiffs’ use of “FM Approved” and “Made in the USA” in their catalogs and website advertising in connection with their welding blankets constituted false designation and false advertising. DJ Plaintiffs were aware of the allegations before they filed suit because, as part of an ongoing negotiation with plaintiffs, Auburn had provided plaintiffs a copy of its complaint. The Court acknowledged its discretion to dismiss the case in favor of Auburn’s later filed complaint, but did not dismiss the case. The two cases mirrored each other, so either could resolve the parties’ dispute. And because both cases were filed in federal courts, there was no concern that the DJ case would cause friction between federal and state courts. The deciding issue was whether the Maine Court could offer a full remedy. DJ Plaintiffs had a motion to transfer or dismiss pending before the Maine Court. In that motion, DJ Plaintiffs argued that the Maine Court lacked personal jurisdiction over two of the three DJ Plaintiffs – Steiner Industries, Inc. and Lab Safety Supply, Inc. DJ Plaintiffs, therefore, asked the Maine Court to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois or to dismiss the case.  The Court held that if the Maine Court transferred the case to the Northern District or dismissed Steiner and Lab Safety for lack of jurisdiction, those factors would weigh in favor of maintaining the DJ action. If, however, the Maine Court denied DJ Plaintiffs’ motion and held that it had jurisdiction over all DJ Plaintiffs, then the Main Court could more effectively decide the dispute than the Northern District. The Court, therefore, denied the motion to dismiss with leave to refile if the Maine Court finds it has jurisdiction over all DJ Plaintiffs and does not transfer the case to the Northern District.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hickory Farms, Inc. v. Snackmasters, Inc., No. 05 C 4541, 2007 WL 1576124 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision that plaintiff’s "Beef Stick" and "Turkey Stick" marks were generic and the Court’s cancellation of the Beef Stick mark (you can read more about that opinion in the Blog’s archives). The Court denied plaintiff’s argument that it should be given more time, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to conduct a survey to show that the marks are not generic. But the Court reasoned that plaintiff was free to conduct such a survey in the fourteen months of discovery leading up to defendant’s summary judgment motion. Furthermore, in its responsive briefing plaintiff specifically stated that plaintiff would “not seek to delay the briefing of this matter with its own survey at this time.” Instead, plaintiff suggested that it would conduct a survey if the Court denied defendant’s summary judgment motion. The Court held that after these statements, plaintiff’s current request to perform a survey was almost “frivolous.”

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Republic Tobacco L.P. v. North Atlantic Trading Co., No. 06 C 2738, 2007 WL 1424093 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).*

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted plaintiff/counter-defendant Republic Tobacco’s (“Republic”) motion for summary judgment on defendant/counter-plaintiff North Atlantic Trading’s (“North Atlantic”) counterclaims and granted North Atlantic’s motion for summary judgment as to each of Republic’s claims. Republic brought claims against North Atlantic for Lanham Act false advertising, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“IDTPA”) and other state law claims, all arising out of an allegedly “false and misleading” presentation entitled “Cigarette Paper Review” (“CPR”) which North Atlantic allegedly gave to various Republic customers. The CPR allegedly criticized Republic, saying among other things that Republic’s cigarette rolling papers were the same as North Atlantic’s and that Republic’s Chairman Donald Levin had “lied” about the composition of Republic’s cigarette papers. North Atlantic filed counterclaims alleging Lanham Act false advertising, violation of the IDTPA and other state law claims, all arising out of Republic’s alleged sales of orange cigarette papers similar in color and size to North Atlantic’s orange Zig-Zag papers, for the purpose of confusing or deceiving consumers.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Papa John's Int'l, Inc. v. Rezko, No. 04 C 3131, 2007 WL 1521472 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2006) (Moran, J.).

Relying on its prior opinion, which included a detailed analysis of the Complaint and notice pleading standards (you can read discussion of that opinion in the Blog's archives), the Court denied defendants' various Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss plaintiff's trade secret and trademark infringement claims.  Defendants argued that plaintiff did not sufficiently which defendants were alleged to have performed the acts at issue.  But the Court reasoned that defendants had notice of plaintiff's claims and that notice is all the Federal Rules require.  The Court pointed out that it had "covered much of this same ground in much greater detail" in its prior opinion and cautioned that "this case will not go away for any defendant by a motion to dismiss . . . ."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc., No. 06 C 2960, 2007 WL 1455798 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.)

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted in part defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's award of plaintiff's attorneys fees' and costs for preparing summary judgment motions.  Plaintiff owns various marks relating to its Days Inn chain (the "Days Inn Marks").  Plaintiff licensed defendants Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc. and Richard Erlich (collectively "LPH") to use the Days Inn Marks in connection with the operation of a hotel in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood.  In 2005, LPH sold the hotel to defendant Gold Coast Investors ("GCI") without informing plaintiff, in violation of the parties' license agreement.  GCI continued operating the hotel using the Days Inn Marks without licensing the rights to the marks from plaintiff.  As a result, plaintiff brought this suit against defendants alleging that, among other things, GCI infringed plaintiff's Days Inn Marks and LPH contributorily infringed plaintiff's Days Inn Marks by selling the hotel to GCI with the knowledge that GCI intended to continue using the Days Inn Marks and without informing plaintiff of the sale or removing the Days Inn Marks from the hotel, as required in the parties' license agreement.  In February, the Court granted plaintiff's summary judgment motion on twelve of fifteen counts and dismissed the remaining three counts as moot (you can find discussion of that opinion in the Blog's archives).  The Court also awarded plaintiff its attorneys' fees, approximately $150,000, for preparing its summary judgment motion.  Defendants moved the Court to reconsider, arguing that the Court should have required the parties to meet to resolve the attorneys fees dispute pursuant to  Local Rule 54.3 before ruling on the fees and that the Court should specifically apportion the fees between defendants.  The Court held that it was not required to follow the Local Rule 54.3 procedure in this case because defendants did not object to plaintiff's requests for fees made in its summary judgment briefing and because additional briefing required by the rule would not have benefited the Court because of its intimate knowledge of the case.  The Court did, however, apportion the fees that it was able to identify as only applicable to one group of defendants.  And the Court awarded an additional $35,000 of fees and costs that had not been presented in the initial motion.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gencor Pacific, Inc. v. Nature's Thyme, LLC, No. 07 C 167, 2007 WL 1225362 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2007) (Kocoras, J.).

Judge Kocoras granted defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)&(3) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue and dismissed the case.  Plaintiff brought this Lanham Act false advertising and copyright infringement case alleging that defendants used portions of plaintiff's copyrighted studies regarding the efficacy of a weight-loss and appetite suppressant containing Caralluma Fimbriata extract.  Defendants, a business and two individuals employed by the business, were residents of New Jersey and had a single sale to an Illinois customer, valued at $300.  Defendants only other contacts with Illinois were an interactive website accessible in Illinois and the fact that one or two of defendants' general solicitations may have been sent to Illinois.  Defendants did not own property in Illinois and there was no proof that any defendants sent any of the allegedly infringing information to Illinois.  The Court held these contacts were not sufficient to create either general or specific jurisdiction.  The Court also held that venue was not proper in the Northern District of Illinois because defendants were not residents of Illinois and the acts at issue in the suit did not occur in the Northern District.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Flentye v. Kathrein, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 1175576 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 18, 2007) (Filip, J.).

Judge Filip denied defendants' motions to dismiss, except as to plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, because Illinois law does not allow punitives for IIED.  Plaintiffs (collectively "Flentye") promoted apartment rental services , including some properties owned by Flentye, using their family name, Flentye.  Defendants competed with Flentye promoting similar apartments, some of which were owned by defendant Kathrein LLC.  Flentye brought suit against defendants alleging violations of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"), Lanham Act unfair competition and related state law claims.  Flentye alleges that defendants lost a dispute before the UDRP and were forced to return certain domain names to Flentye, including timflentye.com, flentye.com and flentyeproperties.com.  Flentye alleged that defendants then registered new domain name timflentye-not.com and used it to direct traffic to defendants' competing websites.  Flentye also alleged that defendants improperly used the term "Flentye" in its meta tags (key words embedded into a site's source code to director search engines to the site) to direct users seeking information regarding Flentye to defendants sites. 

Defendants first argued that Flentye failed to plead its veil-piercing claims and that, therefore, corporate defendant Kathrein LLC should be dismissed because there were not sufficient allegations against it without a veil-piercing theory.  But the Court held that notice pleading was sufficient for a veil-piercing argument and that Flentye met the notice standard.  It was sufficient that Flentye pled that individual defendant Kathrein  created defendant Kathrein LLC "for the sole purpose of holding title to local real estate through which [Kathrein] operates Lee Street Management" and that in the caption Kathrein LLC was identified as "d/b/a Lee Street Management."  The Court noted that while these allegations might not be sufficient to prove that the veil was pierced, they were sufficient for Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) notice pleading.  The Court also noted that a claim of corporate veil-piercing did not require Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) heightened pleading.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Top Tobacco, L.P. v. North Atl. Operating Co., No. 06 C 950, 2007 WL 118527 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly granted defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and granted in part their bill of costs.  In January, Judge the Court granted summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's trademark, unfair competition and dilution claims (read more about that decision in the Blog's archives).  The Court ruled that no reasonable jury could find that consumers were confused between plaintiffs' TOP mark and defendants' "Fresh-Top Canister" mark.  Defendants then filed the instant bill of costs and motion for attorneys' fees arguing that the case was exceptional.  The Court held the case exceptional for three reasons.  First, the Court found that plaintiffs' infringement and dilution claims were "exceptionally weak" stating that "a simple look at the canisters as they appeared on store shelves shows the virtual impossibility that consumers would be confused . . . ."  The Court disregarded plaintiffs' purported evidence of actual confusion, which it presented for the first time in its response to the motion for attorneys' fees.  Second, plaintiffs argued before the PTO that other "top" marks in the tobacco classification were narrow.  But before the Court plaintiffs took the "diametrically opposite" position, arguing that their TOP mark should enjoy broad protection.  Third, the Court found defendant Top Tobacco's chairman Donald Levin's testimony that the two products looked identical because they were both cans of tobacco "absurd."  The Court analogized Levin's argument to the position that all the books on library shelves are identical because they are all books, without regard to their titles, jacket designs or colors.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Chicago Tribune Co. v. Fox News Network LLC, No. 07 C 0865, 2007 WL 1052508 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2007) (Bucklo, J.).*

Judge Bucklo denied plaintiff Chicago Tribune's ("Tribune") motion for a preliminary injunction.  The Tribune sought an injunction which would have required defendant Fox News Networks ("Fox") to change the name of its "Redeye" late-night television news program based upon alleged infringement of the Tribune's Redeye mark related to its Redeye newspaper.  The Court held that the Tribune had only shown a "possibility" that it would prevail on the merits.  The Court found that the Tribune's Redeye mark was at least suggestive and, therefore a strong mark.  And the Court held that while the marks did not visually resemble each other, the Tribune proved a likelihood that the marks were aurally identical.  But the evidence did not favor the Tribune on either of the other two "most important" factors in deciding likelihood of confusion:  defendant's intent and actual confusion.  No evidence showed that Fox "passed off" its program as coming from the Tribune, so the issue of Fox's intent favored Fox.  As to actual confusion, the Tribune put forth a witness that testified that he suffered "momentary actual confusion" when he first learned of Fox's Redeye program, but that it was cleared up almost immediately by someone he was talking with about the program.  Additionally, the witness did not have cable television, so could not watch the show.  While initial confusion can be sufficient to show actual confusion, the Court disregarded the witnesses testimony because he admitted that he was a consumer of neither the Tribune's nor Fox's products. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hickory Farms, Inc. v. Snackmasters, Inc., No. 05 C 4541, 2007 WL 772919 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly held that plaintiff's "Beef Stick" and "Turkey Stick" marks were generic and canceled the Beef Stick mark, plaintiff had already let its "Turkey Stick" registration lapse.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant infringed its marks by marketing defendant's beef and turkey snacks in stick forms and labeling them "Beef Sticks" and "Turkey Sticks," respectively.  But defendant countered with evidence that numerous companies use the terms to refer to meat products sold sell in stick form.  For example, Trader Joe's, Flat Iron, Jimmy Dean, Slim Jim and Tombstone all sell meat stick products using the marks.  The Court held that the terms were generic because they name a class of goods -- meat packaged in a stick form.  The Court also noted that "it [was] difficult to imagine what else a seller would call a beef or turkey product packaged in stick form."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Allied Ins. Co. v. Bach, No. 05 C 5945, 2007 WL 627635 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber granted declaratory judgment defendants/counter-plaintiffs (collectively "defendants") summary judgment DJ plaintiff/counter-defendant's ("plaintiff") duty to defend defendants against Lanham Act and related state law claims.  Defendants were sued by third party Acushnet which accused defendants of willful and intentional violation of Acushnet's marks related to its Titlest Pro VI golf ball based upon defendants' alleged marketing of counterfeit golf balls.  Defendants sought defense and indemnification from plaintiff, their insurer.  Defendants' insurance policy covered, among other things, defendants' infringement of third party marks or copyrights in defendants' advertising so long as the infringement was not done with knowledge or intent of the infringement.  Although the Complaint charges defendants' with willful and intentional violations of the marks, the Lanham Act provides claims without regard to intent.  Because not all of Acushnet's claims require intent, plaintiff has a duty to defend defendants' against the suit.  The Court did note, however, that should Acushnet prove that defendants' acts were willful and intentional, plaintiff would have no duty to indemnify.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gabbanelli Accordions & Imports, L.L.C. v. Italo-Am. Accordion Manufacturing Co., No. 02 C 4048, 2007 WL 465423 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2007) (Zagel, J.).

Judge Zagel held that the Court had jurisdiction over plaintiff's trademark infringement action and ordered defendant to respond to plaintiff's summary judgment motion on the merits of the case.  In October 2002, the Court stayed the case pending resolution of contractual disputes related to ownership of the marks at issue in an Italian court.  The Court lifted the stay in May 2005.  Plaintiff distributed defendant's accordions in the United States.  In 1997, Plaintiff registered the mark at issue, which defendant claims to own.  While the contract at issue in the Italian court may play a role in determining ownership of the mark, the Court held that if plaintiff can prove ownership of the mark prior to the Agreement, then the Court can exercise jurisdiction and resolve the trademark infringement dispute.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Specialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., L.P., 472 F. Supp.2d 999 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 2007) (Holderman, C.J.).

Judge Holderman held declaratory judgment defendant's, Greenwich Industries ("Greenwich"), trademark invalid and held that Greenwich committed fraud on the USPTO while prosecuting its trademarks.  Declaratory judgment plaintiff, Specialized Seating ("Specialized"), and Greenwich are competing manufacturers of folding chairs.*  Greenwich has a trademark to a configuration of a folding chair with certain physical characteristics.  Because Greenwich secured patents for most or all of the features identified in its trademark, the Court held that Greenwich's trademark was functional and, therefore, invalid.  In addition to having held patents on the claimed features, Greenwich had also touted the functional benefits of the features in advertising.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

International Profit Assocs., Inc. v. Paisola, 461 F. Supp.2d 672 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2006) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo held that plaintiff was likely to succeed on its Lanham Act and cyberpiracy or cybersquatter, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(d), claims and issued a temporary restraining order ("TRO") preventing defendants from conduct that likely infringed plaintiff's trademarks.  Based upon the cyberpiracy claim, Defendants were ordered to stop making content available through their website, www.ipaopinion.com, which was likely confusingly similar to plaintiff's site, www.ipaopinions.com.  The Court also ordered defendants to stop using plaintiff's trademarks as search terms in Google's Adwords program. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Top Tobacco, L.P. v. North Atl. Operating Co., No. 06 C 950, 2007 WL 118527 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly granted summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's trademark, unfair competition and dilution claims.  Plaintiffs, Top Tobacco and Republic Tobacco ( collectively "Top Tobacco ") own various trademarks associating the word "top" or a picture of a toy top with tobacco products.  Both Top Tobacco and defendant, North Atlantic Operating and National Tobacco Company ("National Tobacco"), are large players in the "make your own" and "roll your own" cigarette market.  Top Tobacco alleged that its Top marks were infringed and diluted by National Tobacco's use of its "Fresh-Top Canister" mark.  The Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement because it ruled that no reasonable jury could find that consumers were confused between Top Tobacco's TOP mark and National Tobacco's "Fresh-Top Canister" mark.  The Court held that they were visually distinct and cited Top Tobacco's remarks to the USPTO during prosecution of its marks that its TOP marks were visually distinct from marks relating to lids, as does the National Tobacco mark.  Additionally, the Court noted that Top Tobacco had chosen not to present a consumer survey to show actual confusion and did not explain why no survey was done.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Best Vacuum, Inc. v. Ian Design, Inc., No. 04 C 2249, 2006 WL 3486879 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2006) (Hort, J.).

In this trademark and Lanham Act unfair competition suit, Judge Hort granted summary judgment for defendant and dismissed the case.  Plaintiff had operated under the name "Best Vacuum" since 1983 and operated a www.bestvacuum.com website since 1996.  In 2003, defendant began operating a www.bestvacuumcleaners.com website, but when plaintiff complained, defendant changed its website to www.bestchoicevacuums.com.  After defendant refused to take down its second site, plaintiff sued.  Plaintiff's trademark infringement claim was dismissed earlier in the case because plaintiff never registered its "Best Vacuum" mark.  The case was before the Court on cross summary judgment motions.

Continue Reading...