Noodles Raw Catering, owner of Chubby Noodle restaurants, has filed a lawsuit alleging that Saison Group’s Fat Noodle restaurant infringes on Noodles Raw’s trademark. Noodles Raw Catering LLC v. Saison Group LLC, No. 15-316 (N.D. Cal., filed January 22, 2015). The complaint asserts that although Chubby Noodle, which sells “high-quality, well-priced Asian-inspired” food, does not yet own a federally registered trademark in its name (because its application is pending), it has received national and international attention since its opening in 2011. Saison has been developing a Fat Noodle restaurant since 2012—as indicated by intent-to-use applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—but has not yet opened the restaurant, and its website appears to be a placeholder. Noodles Raw alleges that the logo appearing on the website is too similar to its Chubby Noodle logo because both feature “a simple, black, Asian-style bowl with noodles.” Claiming common law trademark infringement, false…
Tag Archives trademark
A Pennsylvania federal court has denied H.J. Heinz Co.’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit alleging that the company stole the idea for the “Dip & Squeeze” ketchup packet. Wawrzynski v. H.J. Heinz Co., No. 11-1098 (W.D. Penn., order entered January 7, 2015). The plaintiff asserts that he met with the company in 2008 and presented the idea for the dual-opening packet, but they never reached a deal; Heinz later released its Dip & Squeeze packet, which the plaintiff argues was too similar to his concept. The court noted that although Heinz presented evidence showing that it was actively developing a dual-function condiment container before meeting with the plaintiff, the plaintiff had also shown that Heinz had been unsuccessful in creating or marketing a feasible container. “Given the evidence presented by both parties to this lawsuit,” the court concluded, “whether either or both of Plaintiff’s ideas were novel and concrete…
Two days after filing a lawsuit alleging that Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. infringed its stylized label trademark featuring the letters “IPA,” Lagunitas Brewing Co. filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the case and its owner, Tony Magee, publicly commented that he had been “seriously schooled” by the “Court of Public Opinion” following a wave of social media backlash. The Lagunitas Brewing Co. v. Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., No 15-153 (N.D. Cal., notice of voluntary dismissal filed January 14, 2015). The complaint alleged that Sierra Nevada’s label for its new Hop Hunter IPA, in a “radical departure” from its typical label designs, infringed the Lagunitas trademark on “large, all-capital, bold, black and centralized ‘IPA’ lettering.” The complaint further argued that “[w]hen Lagunitas began selling its now iconic IPA beer in 1995, there existed only a handful of other brewers who produced an India Pale Ale, and, on information and…
A January 5, 2015, post on NPR’s “The Salt” blog reports that trademark disputes have come to a head in the craft brewing market, where more than 3,000 companies compete for a dwindling number of pithy beer names. Although many brewers work to resolve issues outside the courtroom, there has also been an increase in litigation alleging trademark violations focused on overlapping product names, font styles and label designs. In some cases, brewers that have used beer names for decades have come under fire from new companies looking to trademark them. In particular, the article notes that many hop-related puns—such as “Hopscotch” and “Bitter End”—are currently used on more than one product. “American trademark law lumps breweries together with wineries and distilleries, making the naming game even more chancy,” concludes NPR. “Even imagery can be trademarked and protected in court.” Issue 550
Finding flaws in a lower court’s likelihood of confusion analysis, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the denial of an injunction sought by Pom Wonderful that would block the sale of Pur Beverages’ “pur pom” energy drink. Pom Wonderful v. Hubbard, No. 14-55253 (9th Cir., order entered December 30, 2014). Pom Wonderful sued Pur to prevent Pur from using the name “pur pom” based on a claim of trademark infringement, but a California federal court denied Pom Wonderful’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that Pom likely would not prevail because of distinct visual features on the products. The Ninth Circuit disagreed; it found significant similarities between the “POM” mark owned by Pom and the “pom” used by Pur, including a stylized “o” in each. “POM” and “pom” also sound the same and both refer to pomegranate flavoring or ingredients, the court noted. “Balancing the marks’ many visual similarities,…
Lucasfilm Ltd. has filed a notice of opposition to Walton Street Brewing Corp.’s application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register “Empire Strikes Bock” as a mark. Lucasfilm argues that the name will cause confusion with and dilute goods related to its 1980 film"The Empire Strikes Back," which, as Bloomberg BNA notes, is not associated with any active trademarks but may be famous enough to be protected under common law. The production company also claims that granting the “Bock” trademark will cause confusion with its existing mark—Skywalker Vineyards—in the alcohol industry. In an irreverent video response, Walton Street’s owner explains that the brewery has sold “Bock” on tap at its pub for several years and now intends to bottle it, and it never intended to cause any confusion with its “parody” beer. In the background, a person in a Stormtrooper costume appears to stir beer with a lightsaber,…
A Texas federal court has rejected the argument that the founders of Gina’s Italian Kitchen infringed New York Pizzeria, Inc.’s (NYPI’s) trademark flavor in its Italian dishes. New York Pizzeria, Inc. v. Syal, No. 13-335 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Tex., order entered October 20, 2014). NYPI alleged that its former vice president and his business partner stole trade secrets, including recipes, and used them to infringe NYPI’s distinctive flavors and plating methods at their new restaurant, Gina’s Italian Kitchen. They allegedly obtained a franchisee’s username and password and used it to log onto NYPI’s franchisee website, which held, among other things, recipes for NYPI’s menu items. The court refused to dismiss the claims for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act stemming from alleged access to the franchisee website. The court then addressed NYPI’s Lanham Act claims. Asserting that “no special legal rule” prevents the…
Adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation, a Texas federal court has ruled that Texas can intervene in a lawsuit brought by brewer Alamo Beer Co. alleging that Old 300 Brewing infringed Alamo Beer’s trademark for using the silhouette of the Alamo building on its labels. Alamo Beer Co. LLC v. Old 300 Brewing LLC, No. 14-285 (W.D. Tex., order entered October 14, 2014). The state of Texas filed a motion to intervene in April 2014, asserting that its interests in the Alamo trademark were not adequately represented by either party. A magistrate judge issued a report on the matter in May recommending that Texas be allowed to join the lawsuit, and Alamo Beer argued to the court that the magistrate judge had failed to properly analyze two factors of mandatory intervention and that the state lacked the right to intervene under trademark law. Reviewing Alamo Beer’s concerns, the court rejected its arguments and…
A California federal court has granted Duke University’s motion to dismiss in a lawsuit filed by John Wayne Enterprises seeking a declaratory judgment that its registration and use of Duke trademarks are not likely to cause consumer confusion and do not violate or dilute the school’s trademarks. John Wayne Enterprises, LLC v. Duke Univ., No. 14-1020 (C.D. Cal., order entered September 30, 2014). The case was dismissed on procedural grounds after the court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the North Carolina-based university. Additional information about the lawsuit appears in Issue 530 of this Update. Issue 539
Hershey Co. has filed a complaint in Pennsylvania federal court alleging that LLB Imports infringes its trademarks and trade dress for several of its products, including Reese’s, York, Cadbury, Malteser, Kit Kat, and Rolo. Hershey Co. v. LLB Imports LLC, No. 14-1655 (M.D. Penn., filed August 25, 2014). According to the complaint, LLB Imports has been selling Toffee Crisp, Yorkie, Maltesers, Cadbury, Kit Kat, and Rolo products manufactured outside of the United States bearing nutritional information panels required by other countries, and the sale of the products allegedly infringes trademarks and trade dress owned by or exclusively licensed to Hershey. In addition to several trademark infringement claims, the candy company alleges that Toffee Crisp infringes the trade dress for Reese’s, citing its shade of orange and outlined yellow script, as well as the trade dress of Cadbury, Kit Kat and Rolo. Hershey asks for an injunction, a declaration that LLB violated the…
