Maryland Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Brian Wm. Higgins : Serving Baltimore, Columbia, Frederick

     Below are summaries of recent IP-related lawsuits filed in the the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in 2008 (source: Justia).

• Magnus v. Association of Pet Dog Trainers, No. 8:2008cv00850; filed April 4, 2008; assigned to J. Williams

   Plaintiff Vicki Lynn Magnus, a Waldorf, MD, resident, filed this declaratory judgment action against the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), a New Jersey company based in Greenville, SC. APDT allegedly owns the registered mark for its acronym name. According to her complaint, Magnus, a former member of APDT, created an Internet message board on December 1, 2003, "for discussion of issues of common interest" among other APDT members. Claiming the board was protected under the doctrine of fair use (copyright), the Lanham Act (trademark), and free speech under the First Amendment, Magnus received a cease and desist letter from APDT in 2006. When she objected, her membership was allegedly terminated "without cause." About the same time, APDT sent a "take down" letter to the Internet Service Provider and host of the message board, which complied with the request. Magnus is seeking relief in the form of a declaration that her use of the APDT acronym is lawful, noninfringing, and qualifies as a fair use.

• Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Theodosakis, No. 1:2008cv00879, filed April 7, 2008; assigned to J. Blake

     Nutramax is a Maryland company based in Edgewood, MD. Defendants are Jason Theodosakis, M.D., and Supplement Testing Institute, Inc. (STI), which allegedly sell nutritional supplements, including those allegedly covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,797,289, for “Use of anabolic agents, anti-catabolic agents, antioxidant agents, and analgesics for protection, treatment and repair of connective tissues in humans and animals.” Claim 1 of the ‘289 patent covers a “synergistic combination of an aminosugar and avocado/soybean unsponifiables [ASU].” Nutramax sells Cosamin® ASU and Avoca ASU® under the '289 patent. This is the second lawsuit filed this year by Nutramax in which it asserts the '289 patent (see here).

• National Fallen Firefighters Foundation v. TWL Corp., No. 1:2008cv00896, April 9, 2008; assigned to J. Davis

      This trademark infringement lawsuit involves the mark EVERYONE GOES HOME owned by NFFF, and defendants use of EVERYBODY GOES HOME in connection with a training simulation program.

• Bill Me Later, Inc. v. MODASolutions Corp., No. 1:2008cv00897, filed April 9, 2008; assigned to J. Blake

     This trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition lawsuit involves the mark BILL ME LATER, allegedly owned by plaintiff, who is seeking monetary damages, and attorney's fee, among other relief, from Canada-based MODASolutions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

     In Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, __ F.3d ___ (4th Cir. Nov. 13, 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment that Nevada-based Haute Diggity Dog, LLC did not infringe Paris-based Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A.'s famous LOUIS VUITTON trademark by selling small imitations of handbags labeled "Chewy Vuiton" and that mimic LVM's LOUIS VUITTON handbags. In doing so, the Court found that, while the "Chewy Vuiton" dog toys undisputedly evoke LVM handbags of similar shape, design, and color, and use "CV" in lieu of the LV mark, and use other symbols and colors imitating LVM's Multicolor and Cherry designs, the "Chewy Vuiton" dog toys are successful parodies of LVM handbags and the LVM marks and trade dress used in connection with the marketing and sale of those handbags.

     LVM commenced an action against Haute Diggity Dog in 2002, alleging trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, and related statutory and common law violations. To prove trademark infringement, LVM had to establish (1) that it owns a valid and protectable mark; (2) that Haute Diggity Dog used a "reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation" of that mark in commerce and without LVM’s consent; and (3) that Haute Diggity Dog’s use was likely to cause confusion. To determine whether the "Chewy Vuiton" product line created a likelihood of confusion, the Fourth Circuit considered the nonexclusive Pizzeria Uno factors (1) the strength or distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark; (2) the similarity of the two marks; (3) the similarity of the goods or services the marks identify; (4) the similarity of the facilities the two parties use in their businesses; (5) the similarity of the advertising used by the two parties; (6) the defendant’s intent; and (7) actual confusion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks