Trademark Litigation in Maryland: 2007 Trends

Posted on January 7, 2008 by Brian Wm. Higgins

     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:
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Maryland IP Litigation Cases for the Week of August 20, 2007

Posted on August 27, 2007 by Brian Wm. Higgins

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland was chosen as the forum for litigating the following case(s), as published by Justia:


  • Thirty Eight Street, Inc. v. State Line LC, Case Number 1:2007cv02210, filed August 20, 2007

According to court papers filed August 20, Plaintiffs Thirty Eight Street, Inc., and Vantage Hospitality Group, Inc. (formerly Best Value Inn Brand Membership, Inc.) are Florida entities that  allegedly own the marks BEST VALUE INN, BEST VALUE (right), and AMERICAS BEST VALUE INN BY VANTAGE.  Defendant State Line, LC, is reportedly a Hagerstown, Maryland-based entity.  Defendant Bharat Patel is allegedly a Maryland resident and owns State Line LC.  The filed Complaint alleges that Defendants infringed the asserted marks under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; violated the false advertising provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); contributorily and/or vicariously infringed the marks; and violated several Maryland state statutes and common laws (e.g., Maryland Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Statute, unfair competition).  Plaintiffs are seeking an injunction, destruction of advertising materials, and an award of monetary damages, among other requested relief. 


  • Young Again Products, Inc. v. Young Again Rejuvenation Clinic, LLC, Case Number 8:2007cv02254, filed August 24, 2007

Plaintiff Young Again Products, Inc., a Maryland company that describes itself as being "in the business of production and sale of health and nutritional supplements," has sued Young Again Rejuvenation Clinic, LLC, which is reportedly a New Jersey company operating the site youngagainclinic.com, for allegedly "engaged in the unauthorized use of the Young Again™ Mark by utilizing the Mark in its company name, in its website’s uniform resource locator (“URL”) (also referred to as the domain name) and/or on its website to offer its services and sell related supplement products, including hormone therapies" in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) (Lanham Act), dilution of a famous mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(c), and unfair competition in violation of Maryland's common law.  Young Again Products is seeking a declatory judgment enjoining Young Again Rejuvenation Clinic, LLC, from using the Young Again mark, monetary damages, and other relief.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,