Trademark Infringement – Law Street https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com Law and Policy for Our Generation Wed, 13 Nov 2019 21:46:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 100397344 PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/technology-blog/paypal-pandora-logos/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/technology-blog/paypal-pandora-logos/#respond Tue, 23 May 2017 13:00:45 +0000 https://lawstreetmedia.com/?p=60895

Customers can't differentiate between the similar "P" logos on their phones.

The post PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Pandora revamped its app logo back in October 2016, changing the front and opting for a more minimalistic blue and white design. At the time, Wired magazine couldn’t help but notice that Pandora’s blue capital “P” looked eerily familiar to another app–PayPal.

At first glance, the new app icon looks understated, its form and color reminiscent of the PayPal logo; the updated Pandora ‘P’ has no counter (the open space between the stem and the bowl of the ‘P’), and sports a subtle blue gradient.

Many app users have noted the similarities between the apps on Twitter as well:

According to the New York Post, PayPal says this confusion diverted traffic away from its app, and in effect caused it to lose customers.

“One critically important function of the PayPal logo is to stand out on the crowded screens of customers’ smartphones and tablets,” the suit states. The company says it “has invested heavily in the PayPal Logo since its introduction,” and that Pandora’s logo “not only resembles, but openly mimics the PayPal logo.”

PayPal reportedly sent numerous letters to Pandora hoping to solve the problem, but they went unanswered. Now the company is asking the court to force Pandora to stop using the logo and pay unspecified damages for trademark infringement and trademark dilution.

The threat of a possible settlement isn’t good news for Pandora, which lost about $250 million last year. The internet radio company was late to join the premium subscription bandwagon, and has since struggled to keep up with the growth of Spotify and Apple Music. Earlier this month the company received a $150 million investment from KKR & Co., the private-equity firm, in order to keep it afloat as it attempts to court a buyer to rescue it from its financial woes.

Alexis Evans
Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/technology-blog/paypal-pandora-logos/feed/ 0 60895
Coachella Sues Urban Outfitters For Trademark Infringement https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/fashion-blog/coachella-urban-outfitters/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/fashion-blog/coachella-urban-outfitters/#respond Fri, 17 Mar 2017 20:40:20 +0000 https://lawstreetmedia.com/?p=59643

Battle of the hipster brands?

The post Coachella Sues Urban Outfitters For Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
"Coachella times" courtesy of Miguel Noriega; license: (CC BY 2.0)

Coachella and Urban Outfitters are locked in the ultimate hipster battle over trademark infringement. On Tuesday, Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival and its promoter Goldenvoice filed a lawsuit against the clothing retailer. The suit claims that Urban Outfitters has been selling clothes using the festival’s name and trademark design through its line Free People.

According to the lawsuit, at least four products have been marketed using the “Coachella Marks,” which amounts to unfair competition since they are “directly competitive with those offered by Coachella.” The suit described Urban Outfitters’ style philosophy as “bohemian, hipster, ironically humorous, kitschy, retro and vintage.” Many would say that this style is exactly how they think a music festival goer would dress. But that doesn’t mean Urban Outfitters is free to use a specific festival’s name for marketing purposes.

One example the lawsuit mentions is the so-called “Coachella Valley Tunic” which was described on Free People’s website as “the quintessential summer musical festival piece to throw on and go with.” That specific page has since been taken down. Urban Outfitters also allegedly had a whole line called Coachella Bella that was sold by several major retailers such as Macy’s and Amazon.

And it doesn’t even end there–according to the suit, Urban has bought some keyword ads from Google, which means that if someone googles the word Coachella, products from Urban could pop up. Coachella has apparently made several demands, including a cease-and-desist letter, that Urban stop using its name, to no effect. The festival said it’s very selective with its licensing agreements and that it already has one with clothing giant H&M.

Coachella came under fire recently when it was revealed that owner Phil Anschutz has given a lot of money to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, compulsory unionism in workplaces, and global warming science. He has also sued the IRS several times to get out of having to pay taxes.

But Urban is not that innocent either. The company has been sued for using other names as well as designs without permission before. In 2012, it was sued for branding products “Navajo” without having anything to do with the actual Navajo Nation. That case wasn’t settled until November 2016.

Neither Coachella nor Urban Outfitters have offered any public comments about the lawsuit at this time.

Emma Von Zeipel
Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Coachella Sues Urban Outfitters For Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/fashion-blog/coachella-urban-outfitters/feed/ 0 59643
Michael Jordan Wins Four-Year-Old Trademark Lawsuit in China https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/ip-copyright/jordan-china-lawsuit/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/ip-copyright/jordan-china-lawsuit/#respond Fri, 09 Dec 2016 21:19:24 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.com/?p=57495

Another win for Jordan in a career full of them.

The post Michael Jordan Wins Four-Year-Old Trademark Lawsuit in China appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
Image Courtesy of Angel Navedo; License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

His unmistakeable bald-headed silhouette, arm outstretched and palming a basketball, adorns a Chinese sports company’s products and its nearly 6,000 storefronts. His transliterated name in Mandarin is Qiaodan (pronounced “chee-ow dahn”), which doubles as the company name, Qiaodan Sports Company. But on Thursday, China’s highest court ruled that Michael Jordan, whose name is recognized and monetized from Brooklyn to Beijing, owns the legal rights to the Chinese equivalent of his name.

Jordan initially filed the trademark lawsuit in 2012. As recently as last July China’s Supreme People’s Court ruled in favor of Qiaodan; lower courts ruled the same. But the highest court reversed those decisions on Thursday, giving Jordan a potentially precedent-setting victory. “Nothing is more important than protecting your own name, and today’s decision shows the importance of that principle,” Jordan said in a statement. Qiaodan officials, in a statement through their Weibo account, said they respected the ruling.

Trademark lawsuits in China, a country rife with cheaply made ripoffs, usually favor the first party to file the trademark. This ruling is unusual and, some legal analysts say, can set a new standard for Chinese companies that push the limits of trademark infringement and questionable branding practices. It is also not the first time a major U.S. brand has fought companies in Chinese courts. In May, Apple lost a lawsuit involving a Chinese company that sold leather products stamped with the iPhone trademark.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce welcomed the ruling, saying in a statement: “The Court has called an intentional foul and sent a clear message of deterrence to those who file trademarks in bad faith.” The statement continued, saying that the court’s decision is “about creating a legitimate marketplace where consumers can trust the products they buy.”

A family-owned business based in the southern Fujian province, Qiaodan first registered the “Qiaodan” trademark over a decade ago. Jordan sued in 2012. “It is deeply disappointing to see a company build a business off my Chinese name without my permission, use the number 23 and even attempt to use the names of my children,” he said in a statement at the time.

Jordan’s Chinese name will return to China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce. And while the Chinese sportswear company will be forced to re-brand, the court did not grant Jordan full ownership of his Chinese name. The court said the pinyin, or romanized version of the name “Qiaodan” is a fairly common name that is not exclusively linked to the basketball legend.

Alec Siegel
Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michael Jordan Wins Four-Year-Old Trademark Lawsuit in China appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/ip-copyright/jordan-china-lawsuit/feed/ 0 57495
Hershey’s Settles Trademark Suit With Hashees Marijuana Edibles Maker https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/cannabis-in-america/hersheys-settles-trademark-suit-with-hasheesmarijuana-edibles-maker/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/cannabis-in-america/hersheys-settles-trademark-suit-with-hasheesmarijuana-edibles-maker/#comments Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:30:34 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=26563

The Hershey Company has settled a lawsuit and simultaneously protected millions of little children across the country from becoming future cannabis users. The maker of the legendary chocolate Kiss, Peppermint Patty, and (my personal favorite) Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup settled a suit against marijuana candy manufacturer TinctureBelle LLC. Filed this summer, the suit was in response to TinctureBelle’s "medicated gourmet edibles," many of which boast names allegedly mimicking those of the Hershey Company's treats.

The post Hershey’s Settles Trademark Suit With Hashees Marijuana Edibles Maker appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

The Hershey Company has settled a lawsuit and simultaneously protected millions of little children across the country from becoming future cannabis users.

The maker of the legendary chocolate Kiss, Peppermint Patty, and (my personal favorite) Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup settled a suit against marijuana candy manufacturer TinctureBelle LLC. Filed this summer, the suit was in response to TinctureBelle’s “medicated gourmet edibles,” many of which boast names allegedly mimicking those of the Hershey Company’s treats.

TinctureBelle is clever, I’ll give them that. Some of its product names included “Hashees,” “Ganga Joy,” and “Hashheath.” Who doesn’t enjoy a good pun? Well, Hershey. The Pennsylvania-based company wasn’t laughing when it sued the Colorado-based company for trademark infringement.

The purpose of a trademark is to avoid confusion among consumers between two products. Hershey argued that similarities in product names would do just that and expressed concern over maintaining their wholesome reputation as a company whose biggest fans are children.

“The Hershey Company’s trademarks are iconic and among our company’s most important assets,” explained Hershey’s spokesman Jeff Beckman. “They are recognized by consumers around the world, and our company has spent as many as 120 years building the trust and equity in these iconic brands. Consumers depend on our brand names to represent a level of quality and dependability. These entities have used Hershey’s trademarks, without authorization, to trade on Hershey’s goodwill and reputation, and to draw greater attention to their products; these unauthorized uses of Hershey’s trademarks also make the products more appealing to children.”

TinctureBelle must now refrain from using names that infringe on Hershey products. According to the Denver Business Journal, this includes the destruction of “all remaining specimens of each product, including without limitation cartons, containers, packaging, wrappers, labels, displays and any other material.”

TinctureBelle owner Char Mayes released a statement asserting that “the lawsuit from Hershey came as a huge surprise to us, because we changed our entire label line approximately six months ago, long before these allegations surfaced.”

With one Google search of TinctureBelle’s products, you will find that the packaging does resemble that of Hershey’s delicious treats. It’s pretty obvious.

TinctureBelle now begins the walk of shame with this settlement. It has agreed to disable an Internet site that had been designed to raise money for the legal battle against Hershey. It promised not to register trademark for the names involved in the suit and will have to pay $25,000 per trademark breach of the settlement going forward.

It seems as though Hershey’s legal department is actually quite busy lately. TinctureBelle isn’t the only company in its path of legal destruction. In June it filed a suit against Conscious Care Cooperative over a similar marijuana-based candy issue. And in September, the Hershey Company filed a lawsuit against LBB Imports LCC over trademark infringement of foreign candy.

Meanwhile, Hershey is playing defense against Mars, which accused the candy company of copying its red-colored packaging.

October’s Halloween holiday can mean many things — spookiness and fear, high candy sales, and now salty executives caught up in some sweet trademark hell.

Alexandra Badalamenti (@AlexBadalamenti) is a Jersey girl and soon-to-be graduate of Fordham University in Lincoln Center. She plans to enroll in law school next year to study Entertainment Law. On any given day, you’ll find her with big blonde hair, high heels, tall Nashville dreams, and holding a newspaper or venti latte.

Featured image courtesy of [slgckgc via Flikr]

Avatar

The post Hershey’s Settles Trademark Suit With Hashees Marijuana Edibles Maker appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/cannabis-in-america/hersheys-settles-trademark-suit-with-hasheesmarijuana-edibles-maker/feed/ 2 26563
Trademark Counterfeiting: The Crime Explored https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/ip-copyright/trademark-counterfeiting-the-crime-explored/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/ip-copyright/trademark-counterfeiting-the-crime-explored/#comments Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:56:42 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=7935

Counterfeit products: the items that your empty wallet hates to love. Well, it seems as though the number of counterfeit products rotating the black market is dropping this season. A couple of weeks ago, six New Yorkers were charged with trademark counterfeit and conspiracy. They have allegedly sold more than $13 million worth of Lacoste, […]

The post Trademark Counterfeiting: The Crime Explored appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Counterfeit products: the items that your empty wallet hates to love. Well, it seems as though the number of counterfeit products rotating the black market is dropping this season. A couple of weeks ago, six New Yorkers were charged with trademark counterfeit and conspiracy. They have allegedly sold more than $13 million worth of Lacoste, True Religion, and Ralph Lauren’s Polo clothing to distributors throughout the nation. Those are some serious allegations, Artful Dodger.

The NYPD found more than 2,000 boxes of the counterfeit trademarked clothing in Queens last summer. In addition to these dubious activities, the criminal group has caught the eye of the NYPD Intelligence Bureau. Ray Kelly, the NYPD Commissioner, stated that the covert operations were particularly concerning because of “indications that proceeds were sent to areas in southern Lebanon.”

Well, there isn’t much left to interpretation here. Trademark counterfeiting is a crime under the Lanham Act, and people should face penalties for engaging in such activities. A little bit of background: trademark counterfeiting is the creation of an identical or discernibly the same image as a federally registered mark. Counterfeiting is a crime under Lanham, while infringing a mark is a civil suit. Counterfeit is a form of infringement, but infringement does not equate to counterfeit.

 

Enough of that — what I’m more concerned with is the composition of the counterfeit marks. I’ve seen a fake Fendi or Gucci bag in my day, but I’ve never been exposed to a fake Lacoste logo, for example. Is the crocodile turned to the right instead of the left? Is the tongue pink instead of red? Is the fake mark visually indistinguishable? And unfortunately, I couldn’t find a picture.  BUT, I wanted to compose some visuals and brief background information of a few trademark counterfeit cases throughout IP history.

Nike

In 2008, Nike alleged that two defendants manufactured and sold counterfeit footwear bearing the Nike trademarks over the internet. Read more here. Courtesy of Richard IJzermans via Flickr.

 

Chanel

Last September, Several Atlanta residents were accused of “promoting and otherwise advertising, distributing, selling and/or offering for sale counterfeit products, including at least handbags and wallets, bearing trademarks that are exact copies of the Chanel Mark” for goods of a lesser quality. Read more here. Courtesy of Wen-Cheng Liu via Flickr.

Rolex

In May 2006, Rolex Watch USA, Inc. discovered the watchreps.com website and shut it down through the website’s Internet Service Provider. However, the company discovered that the site had been reactivated three years later and was redistributing counterfeit Rolex watches. Read more here. Courtesy of Charlie J via Flickr.

For more information on trademark counterfeiting, see the International Trademark Association’s website.

Gena.

Featured image courtesy of [Eric Skiff via Flickr]

Gena Thomas
Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trademark Counterfeiting: The Crime Explored appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/ip-copyright/trademark-counterfeiting-the-crime-explored/feed/ 1 7935
After Midnight: Victoria’s Secret Indecent Behavior https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/ip-copyright/after-midnight-victorias-secret-indecent-behavior/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/ip-copyright/after-midnight-victorias-secret-indecent-behavior/#comments Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:00:21 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=7537

Victoria’s Secret — can I call you Victoria? — has been a naughty, naughty girl.  As a dedicated brand minion for Victoria, I felt like a bit of a sleazeball when I decided to spill the specifics on her latest antics.  I really hate to break it to all my lovers out there, but the largest […]

The post After Midnight: Victoria’s Secret Indecent Behavior appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Victoria’s Secret — can I call you Victoria? — has been a naughty, naughty girl.  As a dedicated brand minion for Victoria, I felt like a bit of a sleazeball when I decided to spill the specifics on her latest antics.  I really hate to break it to all my lovers out there, but the largest American retailer of lingerie has been accused of — wait for it — infringement.  Mmmmhmm.  And this isn’t the first time.

Unfortunately, I have to stand my ground on the opposite bedpost here, Victoria.  Hanky Panky Ltd., a Manhattan-based lingerie company, is suing Victoria’s Secret for trademark infringement of its registered marks “Indulge Your Inner Flirt” and “After Midnight.” First off, can anyone tell me why we’re automatically in the red zone?  “The Dupont Factors!,” shouted James Franco (cited merely because he’s an all-time overachiever and not because of the subject matter). Why yes, we have two lingerie companies. This means we’re already dealing with similar products that should be tossed in the indicative-of-infringement basket. Not that this should have been glaringly evident to Limited Brands, the parent company of Victoria’s Secret. No no no. Let’s dig deeper.

The “After Midnight” Infringement Claim

Hanky Panky registered the “After Midnight” mark to cover its 2010 collection of *ehem* “crotchless panties, sensual peek-a-boo bralettes, daring teddies and babydolls.” The complaint claims that this raunchy collection also features “sexual accessories such as lubricants and candles.”  Sounds good to me.  Problem is, it sounded pretty good to Victoria’s Secret, too. So good that they decided to slap the name on their own “aphrodisiac mood candle.”  Well, why stop there? Let’s also put the stolen mark on a few products in literally the same category, erotic unmentionables, that the mark represents for another company.

 

I don’t understand. Did Victoria’s Secret just think Hanky Panky was going to look the other way as they deliberately trampled on and sucked all of the commercial juice out of the mark?  Hanky Panky has a valid trademark. Sure the mark is suggestive, but it’s valid nonetheless. Victoria’s Secret took the exact mark of a competitor, with the knowledge that consumers would be confused, and placed it on extremely similar goods. It comes as no surprise that Hanky Panky is also asking for punitive damages under state law.  I see some much-needed discipline in your future, Victoria.

The “Indulge Your Inner Flirt” Infringement Claim

Hanky Panky trademarked the catchphrase, “Indulge your inner flirt,” in 2007, and has been using the slogan in its ads ever since. Yet Victoria’s Secret still thought they were entitled to thrust a strong middle finger to trademark law and appropriate the phrase in the ads for its own sexy PJs. This can’t be real life. Why should companies even utilize our trademark laws if they have no tenacity?

 

Soo…are you just running low in your fresh ideas bucket, Victoria? You knew better and chose not to do better. Sigh.

Still looking forward to the next semi-annual sale, though.

Gena.

Featured image courtesy of [thinkretail via Flickr]

Gena Thomas
Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Midnight: Victoria’s Secret Indecent Behavior appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/ip-copyright/after-midnight-victorias-secret-indecent-behavior/feed/ 1 7537