The family of Bob Marley will receive more than $2.8 million in damages and unpaid royalties from Jammin Java Corp. in a trademark-infringement suit. FiftySix Hope Rd. Music Ltd. v. Jammin Java, No. 16-5810 (C.D. Cal., order entered May 30, 2017). The family’s companies, 56 Hope Road Music Ltd. and Hope Road Merchandising LLC, own the late musician’s intellectual property and publicity rights and sued Jammin Java after it failed to pay royalties on a license to produce Marley Coffee. Jammin Java was founded by Marley’s son Rohan, who left the company in 2008. Issue 636
Tag Archives intellectual property
A federal court has granted summary judgment on a majority of issues in a dispute between scientists and the University of California Davis centered on the intellectual property rights of two strawberry varieties. Cal. Berry Cultivars, Inc. v. Regents of U. of Cal., No. 16-2477 (N.D. Cal., filed May 2, 2015). Two former UC Davis scientists and their company sued the university alleging it refused to license the strawberry varieties they invented; additional details on the complaint appear in Issue 604 of this Update. The court granted summary judgment on most of the issues, leaving open the scientists’ assertions that UC Davis breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as the unfair competition claim. However, because the court also ruled in favor of UC Davis’ breach of contract claim, it noted that the jury verdict and final judgment may “sock it to both sides .…
Kraft Heinz Foods faces a trade-secret suit alleging it distributed documents containing confidential and proprietary drawings and specifications for plastic caps created by one of its long-time vendors. AptarGroup, Inc. v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 17521 (W.D. Pa., filed April 21, 2017). AptarGroup argues that Kraft distributed engineering and customer drawings providing detailed specifications for its bottle cap and closure designs documents after removing Aptar’s logos and confidentiality warnings. Aptar also asserts that among other disclosures, Kraft released specifications for its “breakthrough” snap-top cap used for Heinz’ inverted, top-down ketchup bottles. The complaint alleges that previous disclosures have included only “one or two ornamental designs, with no detailed specifications, and that Aptar notified Kraft of their breach of contract and asked Kraft to demand the return of the confidential information from all recipients. Claiming trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, Aptar seeks a temporary restraining order, injunctive relief,…
Two strawberry breeders formerly of the University of California, Davis have filed a lawsuit against the university targeting its strawberry-breeding program, which they argue is denying them the opportunity to license the breeds they helped cultivate. Cal. Berry Cultivars LLC v. Regents of U. of Cal., No. 16-2477 (N. Cal., removed to federal court May 6, 2016). The scientists left the program in 2014 to start their own cultivation company with a former California secretary of food and agriculture. Their departure triggered a lawsuit from the California Strawberry Commission, which asserted the university was neglecting the program. The scientists now reportedly argue the university refuses to license—“on a non-exclusive basis at a reasonable royalty”—the plants to California Berry Cultivars to suppress competition, amounting to allegations of conversion, breach of contract, breach of faith, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition. Details about the settlement of the previous lawsuit appear in…
Viacom International Inc. has filed a lawsuit against IJR Capital Investments alleging that a restaurant owned by the company infringes on Viacom’s intellectual property in the “SpongeBob SquarePants” franchise. Viacom Int’l Inc. v. IJR Capital Invs., No. 16-0257 (S.D. Tex., Houston Div., filed January 29, 2016). As the complaint explains, “The ‘Krusty Krab’ is owned by Eugene H. Krabs, a prominent and recurring character in the SpongeBob universe. SpongeBob SquarePants works at the ‘Krusty Krab’ as a fry cook, but he also performs a myriad of other duties, and once stated that his official title is ‘Vice Assistant General Manager in charge of certain things.’” IJR operates The Krusty Krab in Texas and has filed for trademark registration. Viacom argues that IJR is “attempting to trade off of the goodwill and reputation of the ‘SpongeBob SquarePants’ media franchise’ and that consumers are likely to be confused by IJR’s use of “Krusty…
Bacardi Ltd. has reportedly filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on the renewal of a trademark registration for “Havana Club” granted to Empresa Cubana Exportadora de Alimentos y Productos Varios (“Cubaexport”), a Cuban government-owned entity. Cubaexport had filed for a renewal in 2006, but the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) refused to grant the license required to renew the trademark. Cubaexport sold its rum recipe and the rights to “Havana Club” to Bacardi in 1994, 30 years after the United States prohibited the import of Cuban goods. Bacardi sold rum under the “Havana Club” name while disputing the rights to the mark with Pernod Ricard, which owns the rights to sell Havana Club worldwide. In January 2016, Cubaexport sought to renew its trademark in “Havana Club,” arguing that it had obtained the necessary license from OFAC, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office…
Idahoan Foods LLC has filed a lawsuit against Basic American Inc. alleging the company’s line of potato products marketed under the name “Buttery Home-Style” infringes on Idahoan’s rights to “Buttery Homestyle,” its brand of potato products. Idahoan Foods LLC v. Basic Am. Inc., No. 16-0005 (D. Idaho, filed January 6, 2016). Idahoan’s trademark application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was filed in May 2015 and remains pending, but the company argues that it has used “Buttery Homestyle” commercially since 2003. Idahoan notified Basic American in December 2015 of its allegedly superior rights to the mark; the complaint asserts that Basic American then filed a lawsuit in California federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that “Buttery Home-Style” does not infringe “Buttery Homestyle.” Idahoan seeks an injunction, destruction of the infringing mark, damages and maturation of its trademark application. Issue 590
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that a method of enzymatic hydrolysis of soy fiber for use in creating food additives is not patentable because it would have been obvious in light of previous inventions. In re Urbanski, No. 15-1272 (Fed. Cir., order entered January 8, 2016). The plaintiffs challenged the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of a patent for their technique of creating food additives from soy fiber, which the examiner found to be “readily combinable” from two prior inventions. The Federal Circuit agreed with the examiner’s and appeals board’s determinations that a person of ordinary skill would have expected that adjusting the process as the plaintiffs did would have yielded the results they reached. Accordingly, the court affirmed the prior dismissal. Issue 590
A Kentucky federal court has granted a motion to dismiss an action against the owner of Duck Dynasty trademarks alleging infringement based on jurisdictional issues. Chinook USA v. Duck Commander, Inc., No. 14-1015 (W.D. Ky., Louisville Div., order entered January 8, 2015). In 2014, Duck Commander licensed the rights to several trademarks related to Duck Dynasty, including “Duck Commander Family Foods,” “Uncle Si” and “Si Robertson,” to Chinook for use on several types of beverages. Chinook later learned that Duck Commander also licensed the same rights to other companies, including Go-Time and Checkered Flag Business. Chinook sued, arguing that it held exclusive rights to the use of the trademarks on beverages. In “colorful” filings recounting “Bill Russell’s collegiate basketball career, the Scottish jurist and poet Sir Walter Scott’s Marmion, and Jackie Gleason’s role in an short-lived television series from the late 1940s,” Chinook argued that Duck Commander and the beverage…
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently took action on the divestiture of certain Whole Foods Market Inc.’s assets as part of the consent order that concluded antitrust litigation the agency brought to challenge Whole Foods’ 2007 acquisition of Wild Oats Market, Inc. According to an FTC news release, the Whole Foods divestiture trustee sought approval to sell three Wild Oats stores and certain intellectual property. FTC commissioners approved the sale of Wild Oats stores in Kansas City, Missouri; Boulder, Colorado; and Portland, Maine. While allowing the sale of Wild Oats’ and Alfalfa Markets’ intellectual property to proceed as to Luberski, Inc., and A-M Holdings, LLC, the FTC denied a proposal to sell their intellectual property to Topco Associates LLC, apparently finding that this sale would not satisfy the purposes of intellectual property divestiture. See FTC Press Release, June 18, 2010; Naturalproductsmarketplace.com, June 21, 2010.
12
