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

Medallion Products, Inc. v. H.C.T.V., Inc., No. 06 C 2597, 2007 WL 3085913 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2007) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah dismissed defendant Broadcast Arts Group (“BAG”) for lack of personal jurisdiction, but held that the Court had personal jurisdiction over defendant ICC, Woodridge Specialty Products Corp. and James Timlin (collectively “ICC Defendants”). Plaintiffs argued that BAG’s tortious acts against plaintiffs, all Illinois residents, created personal jurisdiction based upon the effects test doctrine. But the Court held that the alleged tortious acts against were not sufficient for jurisdiction because BAG was a Florida resident and all of its allegedly tortious acts were performed in Florida or Pennsylvania, at the request of non-Illinois residents. 

The alleged tortious acts of the ICC Defendants, however, did create personal jurisdiction pursuant to the effects test doctrine. The ICC Defendants allegedly entered an agreement to develop, market and sell a counterfeit pet-stain removal product that was packaged in bottles using plaintiff’s “Urine Gone” logo. The alleged acts and resulting injury would have occurred in Illinois.

The Court also held that plaintiffs met the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 pleading standards as clarified in Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ____ U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). So, the Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sotelo v. Suburban 171, Inc., No. 07 C 2447, 2007 WL 2570355 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Lanham Act unfair competition claim. Plaintiffs operated a salon called “Studio 171.” Defendants took over the location of plaintiffs’ salon and operated their own salon using all of the Studio 171 signage and marks. Defendants argued that plaintiffs’ unfair competition claim should be dismissed because the Studio 171 mark was either descriptive or generic and plaintiff did not plead secondary meaning. But the Court held that the argument was premature. A plaintiff need not plead secondary meaning.* And furthermore, plaintiffs did plead secondary meaning, stating that the Studio 171 mark had developed “considerable value” and become “uniquely associated” with plaintiffs’ business. The Court did, however, dismiss plaintiffs’ RICO claim for failing to plead their fraud allegations with particularity pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

* The Court did not cite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) (read more about the decision at the University of Chicago Faculty Blog).  But based on other recent opinions citing Twombly for heightened pleading requirements, I wonder if plaintiffs at least should plead secondary meaning now.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks