Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) v. IDK, Incorporated et al
Maryland District Court
Filed: March 6, 2008
Plaintiff: Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) Defendant: IDK, Incorporated, IDK Properties, LLC, Ira K Kogod
Case Number: 8:2008cv00605
Yellowstone Valley Brewing v. Luxco
Montana District Court
Filed: March 6, 2008
Plaintiff: Yellowstone Valley Brewing, Yellowstone Valley Brewing Defendant: Luxco
Case Number: 1:2008cv00040
King Taco Restaurant, Inc. v. King Taco Express, Inc. et al
Nevada District Court
Filed: March 5, 2008
Plaintiff: King Taco Restaurant, Inc. Defendant: King Taco Express, Inc., Emmanuel Luna, Sol Celene Rojas
Case Number: 2:2008cv00281
Bright Now! Dental, Inc et al v. Newport Dental Group
California Central District Court
Filed: March 5, 2008
Plaintiff: Bright Now! Dental, Inc, Bright Now! Dental, Inc, Bright Now! Dental, Inc, Consumerhealth, Consumerhealth and others… Defendant: Newport Dental Group
Case Number: 8:2008cv00223
Ball Dynamics International, LLC v. Jamz Fitness, Inc.
Colorado District Court
Filed: March 5, 2008
Plaintiff: Ball Dynamics International, LLC Defendant: Jamz Fitness, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2008cv00465
Welsh v. Big Ten Conference, Inc. et al
Illinois Northern District Court
Filed: March 5, 2008
Plaintiff: Robert W. Welsh, Robert W. Welsh Defendant: Big Ten Conference, Inc., Big Ten Network Services, LLC
Case Number: 1:2008cv01342
Acclivus Corporation v. Advance Consulting Inc
Texas Northern District Court
Filed: March 5, 2008
Plaintiff: Acclivus Corporation Defendant: Advance Consulting Inc
Case Number: 3:2008cv00386
Trade West, Inc. v. U.S. Toy Company, Inc.
Hawaii District Court
Filed: March 5, 2008
Plaintiff: Trade West, Inc. Defendant: U.S. Toy Company, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2008cv00114
Fossil Partners LP v. GMA Accessories Inc
Texas Northern District Court
Filed: March 4, 2008
Plaintiff: Fossil Partners LP, Fossil Partners LP Defendant: GMA Accessories Inc
Case Number: 3:2008cv00382
LIFTED RESEARCH GROUP, INC. v. BEHDAD, INC. et al
District of Columbia District Court
Filed: March 4, 2008
Plaintiff: LIFTED RESEARCH GROUP, INC. Defendant: BEHDAD, INC., DOES 1-10
Case Number: 1:2008cv00390
American Dairy Queen Corporation et al v. Myung Taek Lee
California Central District Court
Filed: March 4, 2008
Plaintiff: American Dairy Queen Corporation, American Dairy Queen Corporation, DQF, Inc., DQF, Inc. Defendant: Myung Taek Lee, Myung Taek Lee
Case Number: 2:2008cv01505
Bandmerch, LLC v. John Does et al
California Central District Court
Filed: February 28, 2008
Plaintiff: Bandmerch, LLC Defendant: John Does, Jane Does, XYZ Company
Case Number: 2:2008cv01379
Realty World, Inc. v. Three Zee, Inc. et al
California Central District Court
Filed: February 28, 2008
Plaintiff: Realty World, Inc., Realty World, Inc. Defendant: Three Zee, Inc., Realty World, Michael Zeman
Case Number: 2:2008cv01402
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Nice-Pak Products, Inc. et al
California Central District Court
Filed: February 28, 2008
Plaintiff: Philip Morris USA Inc., Philip Morris USA Inc. Defendant: Nice-Pak Products, Inc., DOES
Case Number: 2:2008cv01368
Nike, Inc. v. Nyla Kauv et al
California Central District Court
Filed: February 28, 2008
Plaintiff: Nike, Inc., Nike, Inc. Defendant: Nyla Kauv, Van Han Kauv, Does
Case Number: 2:2008cv01404
Jonathan F Egan v. Pacifc Beverages Pty Limited et al
California Central District Court
Filed: February 28, 2008
Plaintiff: Jonathan F Egan, Jonathan F Egan Defendant: Pacifc Beverages Pty Limited, Bluetongue Brewery Pty Limited, DK Imports, LLC, Haralambos Beverage Company, Morris Distributing Inc. and others…
Case Number: 2:2008cv01400
Gentle Giants Studios, Inc. v. George Gaspar et al
California Central District Court
Filed: February 28, 2008
Plaintiff: Gentle Giants Studios, Inc., Gentle Giants Studios, Inc., Gentle Giants Studios, Inc. Defendant: George Gaspar, DOES
Case Number: 2:2008cv01425
XACTA 3000, Inc. v. Holistec et al
By California Central District Court
California Central District Court
– Trademark
Filed: February 27, 2008
Plaintiff: XACTA 3000, Inc., XACTA 3000, Inc. Defendant: Holistec, Virtu-All Technologies, Inc., David S Lee
Case Number: 2:2008cv01353

CircleID: “The Liabilities for the Corporations and/or their Lawyers“:

This post is based on the scenario that a trademark.tld domain name is registered with a UK ICANN accredited registrar, (they have an exclusive UK jurisdiction clause in their contracts), the trademark.tld criticism website located at that domain name is strictly non-commercial, the servers are located in the UK, and the registrant is a British citizen.
In the above circumstances, the corporations and/or their lawyers are taking a big risk when they use the UDRP in order to silence criticism at trademark.tld

43(B)log: “False Claims To Retailers Violate Lanham Act”
“The current case concerned allegedly false claims that the Dyson model DC18 doesn’t lose suction and that it is the “most powerful lightweight” vacuum cleaner. This suit was filed four months after an earlier false advertising suit was settled and dismissed with prejudice. . . .
While the first case was pending, Dyson pitched the DC18 (under a different name) to a number of nationwide retailers using the “most powerful lightweight” and “doesn’t lose suction” claims . . .
Dyson defended on grounds of res judicata. The court agreed that Oreck’s claims with respect to the DC18 were part of the same cause of action as the earlier lawsuit.”

airborne.jpg
Airborne Herbal Supplement has annual sales of $300 mil., is apparently not a miracle cold-buster but is “an overpriced, run-of-the-mill vitamin pill that’s been cleverly, but deceptively, marketed,” according to lead plaintiff in a suit that has resulted in a settlement under which Airborne will pay a $23.3 mil. settlement, including refunds to purchasers of the product. Via AdAge.

Rockbridge Capital, LLC v. Rockbridge Equity Partners, LLC
Ohio Southern District Court
Filed: March 5, 2008
Plaintiff: Rockbridge Capital, LLC, Rockbridge Capital, LLC Defendant: Rockbridge Equity Partners, LLC
Case Number: 2:2008cv00208
Stahls’ Incorporated et al v. All American Supply, Incorporated
Michigan Eastern District Court
Filed: March 3, 2008
Plaintiff: Stahls’ Incorporated, Stahls’ Special Projects, Incorporated Defendant: All American Supply, Incorporated
Case Number: 2:2008cv10888
RVCA Platform, LLC v. Nautica Apparel, Inc. et al
California Central District Court
Filed: February 29, 2008
Plaintiff: RVCA Platform, LLC, RVCA Platform, LLC Defendant: Nautica Apparel, Inc., Does
Case Number: 2:2008cv01436
Virco Mfg. Corporation et al v. Jonti-Craft, Inc. et al
California Central District Court
Filed: February 27, 2008
Plaintiff: Virco Mfg. Corporation, Virco Mfg. Corporation, Virco Mfg. Corporation, Virco Mgmt. Corporation, Virco Mgmt. Corporation and others… Defendant: Jonti-Craft, Inc., DOES
Case Number: 2:2008cv01332
Garmin Ltd. et al v. Pacific Coast Radio, Inc. et al
California Central District Court
Filed: February 26, 2008
Plaintiff: Garmin Ltd., Garmin Ltd., Garmin Corporation, Garmin Corporation, Garmin USA, Inc. and others… Defendant: Pacific Coast Radio, Inc., David George, DOES
Case Number: 2:2008cv01305
Appulate, Inc. v. ATIN For Small Business, LLC et al
California Central District Court
Filed: February 26, 2008
Plaintiff: Appulate, Inc. Defendant: ATIN For Small Business, LLC, James E Gilmore
Case Number: 2:2008cv01314
I obtained these listings from the Justia Docket Search.

uspolo.jpg
Plaintiff says to Defendant during settlement discussions “we have a problem with your trademark A but not your trademark B.” Plaintiff goes on to sue for infringement on both A and B. Defendant seeks to enter plaintiff’s statement to prove estoppel by acquiescence. FRE 408 on its face makes inadmissible settlement statements as they go to invalidity of plaintiff’s claim. In this case, the statement can’t be entered as evidence that plaintiff believed that there was no likelihood of confusion. However, such statements may be offered for other purposes. Defendant argues that it can’t prove estoppel and acquiescence without the statement because the statement was the basis for its reliance on plaintiff not taking action. Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s reading of the exception swallows the rule, because its claim is invalid if there is an estoppel defense. 2d Cir holds that plaintiff’s reading of the rule would swallow the exception, and let’s the statement in.
PRL USA Holdings v. US Polo Association, et al, 06-3691-cv (2d Cir March 4 2008)
Name the movie where this line is from: “I had two ponies drown under me.”

U of Texas: Tralton Law Library: Trademark Literature Current Awareness

The “Current trademark literature” website is a resource for keeping informed of current articles related to U.S. trademark law. This service is edited by Jane O’Connell, Director of faculty and student services at the Tarlton Law Library.
Law Library staff reviews law journals and law reviews (and a great many other legal periodicals) as they are received in the library. We examine the table of contents of all of these publications and identify any article concerning U.S. trademark law. We then input the basic bibliographic information about each article into this database, and scan the first page of the article.

The service is available as a RSS feed.