I don’t think any field is as litigated as dog chew toys that resemble luxury products. Here, CRISPAW v CRISTAL. This is not the first time this plaintiff brought a DJ against this defendant.
Maxim started as a men’s magazine and has become a ‘lifestyle’ brand. Defendant used MAXIM for anti-perspirant wipes for people with hyperhidrosis, a condition causing excessive sweating. Four years ago, defendant began selling scented wipes, and adopted a logo and packaging that, allegedly, is evocative of Maxim’s image. Maxim itself is moving into fragrance and cosmetic, and in the course of surveying the market, learned of defendant’s packaging. It brought a prelim.
Held: Under the heightened Salinger standard, Maxim failed to shop irreparable harm, or more, precisely, if there was irreparable harm, it occurred four years ago. Also, defendant’s target market, people who sweat a lot, was very small.
Cloralex brings DJ action regarding Clorox’ protests. Note use of graphics in paragraphs 27 to 32, to illustrate the ‘crowded field.’ Note paragraphs 39 to 61 to illustrate the length of the acquiescence.
Hershey’s oppose Mars’ application for cross-section of Snickers bar on functionality grounds. Mars’ specimen was use of the cross-section on an in-store display.
Second golf blog post today. Roger Cleveland designs golf clubs. He sold his company to plaintiff (which retains the CLEVELAND trademark), then joined defendant, Callaway. Callaway is now indicating on the club head itself that it is ‘designed by Roger Cleveland.’ See illustrations above.
This is a strange fact pattern. Plaintiff alleges that it has operated the PGA event, the PHOENIX OPEN (now known as the Waste Management Phoenix Open) for decades. Defendant approaches plaintiff and alleges that it owns the rights to PHOENIX OPEN. I couldn’t find any press reports on the dispute. Something is not right with this picture.