Maryland IP Litigation 2008: Lawsuit Summaries

     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.

Maryland IP Litigation 2008: Lawsuit Summaries Nos. 13-15

Today's lawsuit summaries involve patent and trademark issues (source: Justia). 

     Pennzoil-Quaker State, a Delaware company based in Houston, TX, contends that it is owner of the PENNZOIL logo and related marks (used in commerce for the sale and promotion of lubricants and other petroleum-based products). Defendant Schmidt allegedly does business as and is the owner of Auto Lube, Inc., in Laurel, MD. According to the complaint, Pennzoil and Schmidt entered into a purchase and licenses agreement which provided for the display of the PENNZOIL mark and signs in Defendant’s Auto Lube facility. Pennzoil contends that Schmidt breached the agreement, and is now infringing the mark and logo. 

     Matthew Kirtland and Rena Scheinkman of Fulbright & Jaworski (Washington, DC) filed the complaint on behalf of Pennzoil.

     The USOC is a federally chartered corporation based in Colorado Springs, CO. Under the Olympic Sports Act, the USOC was granted the exclusive right to use the OLYMPIC marks in the United States (including OLYMPIC, OLYMPIAD, the five interlocking rings symbol, and others), and is the owner of the federally-registerd OLYMPIC mark.

     USOC’s complaint states that Defendant Olympic Supply, Inc. (d/b/a Olympic News), is a Maryland entity based in Capitol Heights, MD. The identities of Defendants Does 1-10 are unknown. Defendants are accused of using the OLYMPIC mark as part of a retail trade name despite demands by the USOC to cease and desist such action, in violation of the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

     Kevin Arthur and Ezra Gollogly of Kramon & Graham (Baltimore) filed the complaint on behalf of the USOC.

     Readers of this website may recall that Nutramax Laboratories is an Edgewood, MD, entity that “researches, develops, manufactures, markets, distributes, sells, and has sold, nutritional supplement products across the United States.” Its complaint alleges that it is the owner of 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].” Glucosamine is an aminosugar. Nutramax alleges that it has sold Cosamin® ASU and Avoca ASU®.

     Defendant Genesis Today, Inc., a Texas corporation, and Defendant Swanson Health Products, Inc., a North Dakota corporation, are accused of infringing the ‘289 patent by selling “4JointHealth” (Genesis) and “Joint Formula w/Hyaluronic Acid” (Swanson), containing the claimed ingredients, and thereby directly competing with Nutramax’s products. Nutramax is seeking an injunction and unspecified monetary relief.

     Robert Bowie and Joshua Glikin of Bowie & Jensen, LLC (Towson) filed the complaint on behalf of Nutramax.

Trademark Litigation in Maryland: 2007 Trends

     Thirty-four plaintiffs filed 39 trademark infringement lawsuits in the District Court for the District of Maryland in 2007 (see a list of the lawsuits and the parties involved after the jump). The 39 lawsuits involved 63 defendants (individuals and entities).  By comparison, in 2006, 37 patent infringement lawsuits were filed in Maryland. 

     Topping the list of companies filing the most trademark infringement lawsuits in Maryland in 2007 were Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., the Edgewood, MD, company that specializes in nutritional supplements (4 lawsuits), and Young Again Products, Inc.,the Maryland company that describes itself as being "in the business of production and sale of health and nutritional supplements" (3 lawsuits). Nutramax also topped the list of companies filing the most patent infringement lawsuits in Maryland in 2007 (see related post here).

     The 39 lawsuits filed last year were assigned to 11 Maryland District Court Judges: Bennett (3), Blake (2), Chasanow (1), Davis (4), Garbis (3), Legg (4), Motz (5), Nickerson (1), Quarles (5), Titus (1), and Williams (4).

     List of trademark lawsuits filed in 2007:

  • Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. PetMed Express, Inc.
  • American Mensa, Ltd. v. Inpharmatica, LTD et al
  • Sage Dining Services, Inc. v. Morrison Management Specialists, Inc.
  • Maid to Perfection Corp, v. Vernet et al
  • Pyramide USA, Inc. v. Meissner et al
  • Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America v. The Wilder Spice Company
  • Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Newton-Everett, L.L.C.
  • The Compassionate Friends, Inc. v. The Compassionate Friends of Maryland, Inc.
  • Stars-N-Bars Entertainment, Inc v. Golzar et al
  • Invenergy Wind North America LLC v. John Doe Numbers 1 Through 10
  • Moulin Rouge, S.A. v. Moulin Rouge Caterers, Inc. et al
  • Allegis Group, Inc. v. Bizet Human Asset Management
  • Extra Space Storage, LLC v. Maisel-Hollins Development Co. et al
  • Young Again Products, Inc. v. Young Again Rejuvenation Clinic, LLC
  • Thirty Eight Street, Inc. et al v. State Line LC et al
  • Young Again Products, Inc. v. JMS Partners Enterprises, Ltd.
  • Young Again Products, Inc. v. Vitamins Home
  • Archstone Consulting LLC v. Archstone Portfolio Solutions, LLC
  • Global Barbeque, LLC et al v. Rub, LLC et al
  • Coach & Courier, LLC v. Kent Island Coach & Courier et al
  • Bianchi et al v. Orendorff et al
  • The American Board for Certification in Orthotics, Prosthetics and Pedorthics, Inc. v. Board of Orthotist/Prosthetist Certification, Inc.
  • Ferrante, Inc. v. Eastern Atlantic Food Group, Inc. et al
  • First Mariner Bancorp. et al v. Affiliated Mortgage Protection, LLC et al
  • Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. MD
  • McCormick & Company, Inc. v. Weatherchem Corporation
  • The Hershey Company et al v. Vendomatic, Inc.
  • Patient First Corporation v. Patients 1st Medical Equipment Company
  • Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Newton-Everett, L.L.C.
  • Leonard, Inc. v Quantum Sail Design Group, LLC et al
  • Government Employees Insurance Company v. Mostchoice.com, Inc.
  • SRT-MD, LLC v. Servage Hosting
  • Travco Products, Inc. v. KR Natural Products

Notes:

Maryland IP Litigation Cases for the Week of October 15, 2007

     Below is a summary of the IP-related cases filed in the the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland during the week beginning October 11, 2007 (source: Justia). This time, two patent cases and a trademark case make up the week's docket:

  • American Silver LLC v. General Resonance LLC, No. 07 Civ 02807, filed Oct. 15, 2007

     Plaintiffs are American Silver LLC and its subsidiary American Biotech Labs LLC, both Utah companies. ABL owns U.S. Patent No. 7,135,195 and several other patents directed to silver products used in the life sciences field.

     Defendant General Resonance LLC is a Nevada company with its corporate headquarters located in Havre de Grace, MD. Defendants Juliana Brooks and Mark Mortenson are reportedly residents of Maryland. Ms. Brooks is allegedly the Senior Managing Director of General Resonance. Mr. Mortenson is allegedly a lawyer licensed to practice in Virginia and registered to practice before the PTO. According to court papers, Mr. Mortenson acts as General Resonance's general counsel.

     Plaintiffs seek to quiet title to the ownership interests of an invention and related patent applications, including PCT/US05/047699. Other counts in the complaint include fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud by concealment, constructive fraud, breach of contract, conversion, misappropriation of scientific ideas, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, legal malpractice, and civil conspiracy.

     George Ritchie of Venable filed the complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs. 

  • Raymond Geddes & Company, Inc. v. J. Rousek Toy Co. Inc.,No. 07 Civ 02818, filed Oct. 16, 2007
undefined

     On October 11th, Raymond Geddes & Co., Inc. a Maryland company with its headquarters in Baltimore, MD, sued Los Angeles, CA-based Nakajima USA, Inc. for alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 6,158,871, which is directed to an "Illuminated Ball-Point Pen" (advertisement). Infringement allegations were based on Nakajima's sale of the Hello Kitty light up pen. (Related post).

     In the present case, Raymond Geddes has sued J. Rousek Toy Co., a Bishop, CA company apparently doing business as Giggletime Toy Co.  In this matter, however, Raymond Geddes is asserting its U.S. Des. Patent No. 550,772, which is directed to a design for an "eraser cap for a writing instrument."

     Infringement allegations in the complaint are based on Rousek's sale of an eraser cap advertised as the "Extendo" cap. 

     Sterne Kessler's Tracy-Gener Durkin filed the complaint on behalf of Raymond Geddes.


  • Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Newton-Everett, L.L.C.,  No. 07 Civ 02833, filed Oct. 18, 2007

     This is a false advertising action under the Lanham Act against Newton-Everett, which Nutramax Labs alleges manufactures, markets, and sells a joint health supplement for cats and dogs called COSEFLEX that competes directly with Nutramax's COSEQUIN. Nutramax is a Maryland corporation based in Edgewood, MD, and claims to have "started the glucosamine/chondroitin sulfate revolution." Newton-Everett is a Scottsdale, AZ company (jurisdiction is predicated on website sales in the Maryland forum).  The single count in the complaint is for violation of Sec. 43(a) of the Lanham Act (false advertising).

     Robert Bowie of Bowie & Jensen LLC filed the complaint on behalf of Nutramax.