Seattle Trademark Lawyer

In CertainTeed Corp. v. Seattle Roof Brokers, a manufacturer of asphalt shingles filed suit against James Garcia, a “roof broker” who allegedly made false statements about CertainTeed’s roofing products.

On June 28, Western District Judge Richard Jones granted summary judgment for CertainTeed on its false advertising and Consumer Protection/Unfair Business Practices Act claims, and imposed a permanent injunction.

In doing so, the court found Mr. Garcia’s falsehoods included statements that CertainTeed’s product “will not be able to pass a resale inspection after 15 to 20 years”; that “one roofing contractor reports submitting over 600 warranty claims to CertainTeed within the last four years”; and CertainTeed’s product “have a history of premature failure.”

Gotta love a court that gives its parties options.

In its permanent injunction, the court stated: “As to Mr. Garcia’s website (whether at www.seattleroofbrokers.com or any other domain he controls), he has two options. He may, at the top of every page on his website, include a prominent hyperlink (of a font size at least as large as any other font used on the page) to an electronic version of this order. The text of the hyperlink shall include the following statement: ‘Please click here for court order finding that this website contains false statements.’ His website must continue to include these hyperlinks until he removes every false statement that violates this order, at which time he can notify the court that the false statements have been removed. If the court finds that the false statements have been removed, it will permit him to remove the hyperlinks. Alternatively, Mr. Garcia may take his website ‘offline,’ remove the false statements, submit the new website content to the court for approval, and await court approval before placing his website online.”

The case cite is CertainTeed Corp. v. Seattle Roof Brokers, No. 09-563 (W.D. Wash. June 28, 2010) (Jones, J.).

The jury’s in.

On June 18, the Western District jury in the Campagnolo S.R.L. v. Full Speed Ahead false advertising case found for the defendant.

Campagnolo had claimed the Seattle-based maker of bicycle components made false representations about the stiffness-to-weight ratios of the parties’ bicycle cranksets. (See most recent STL’s post about the case here.)

The jury unanimously found that Campagnolo failed to establish its claims for false advertising, common law unfair competition, or violation of the Washington Consumer Protection/Unfair Business Practices Act, awarding the plaintiff nothing.

The case cite is Campagnolo S.R.L v. Full Speed Ahead, Inc., No. 08-1372 (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2010).

Rawlings’ complaint alleges Under Armour (right) put its logo on
Rawlings’ helmet (left) without Rawlings’ permission. 

On June 7, Rawlings Sporting Goods Co. sued Under Armour, Inc., in the Western District for false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, and other Lanham Act causes of action.

The reason?

Rawlings says Under Armour put its logo on Rawlings’ COOLFLO red-and-black batting helmet without Rawlings’ permission and used the helmet in at least two magazine advertisements for Under Armour batting gloves.

The complaint alleges that “Customers and the public are likely, upon seeing the UA Logo affixed to the COOLFLO® Helmet Mark and the COOLFLO® Trade Dress, to mistakenly believe either that the products being sold in association with the helmet originate from Rawlings or to believe that the helmet originates from Under Armour. Customers may also believe that Rawlings sponsors, is affiliated with or endorses the goods sold in association with the COOLFLO® Helmet upon which the UA Logo has been affixed.”

Under Armour has not yet answered Rawlings’ complaint.

The case cite is Rawlings Sporting Goods Co. v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 10-933 (W.D. Wash.).

Since I’ve covered it here, here and here, I might as well report that the Western District denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in Campagnolo S.R.L. v. Full Speed Ahead, Inc., a false advertising case between competing bicycle component manufacturers.

The order is pretty fact-specific, but it involved dueling survey experts who together helped generate genuine issues of material fact when each party’s facts were examined in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Of interest is the court’s recognition that a party need not prove actual damages to recover under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.

The court noted: “the Washington Supreme Court has held that ‘nonquantifiable injuries, such as loss of goodwill’ are sufficient to meet the injury element of a CPA claim. Contrary to FSA’s arguments, the more recent decision of Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., does not contradict this proposition. That case merely holds that there must be a demonstrable causal link between the misrepresentation and the plaintiff’s injury.”

Trial’s set for June 1.

The case cite is Campagnolo S.R.L. v. Full Speed Ahead, Inc., No. 08-1372 (W.D. Wash. May 11, 2010) (Martinez, J.).

Competing appliance recycling companies slugged it out in Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. v. JACO Environmental, Inc., a false advertising case the Ninth Circuit decided on May 4.

The Central District of California granted the defendant summary judgment.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding no reasonable jury could find the defendant’s statements were actionable.

The court found: “The statement that Defendants’ method for recycling appliances is a ‘unique’ system with ‘unprecedented’ results is non-actionable puffery because it is a ‘general, subjective claim,’ rather than a statement about ‘specific or absolute characteristics.’

“Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by requiring proof of bad faith for the statements that ‘JACO’s system for handling contaminated polyurethane is an entirely different approach’ and that ‘no other company could handle polyurethane contaminated with CFC-11’ before Defendant JACO Environmental, Inc. entered the market. Even assuming that Plaintiffs are correct that proof of bad faith is not necessary, neither of those statements supports a Lanham Act claim.

“No reasonable jury could find that the ‘entirely different’ statement is false. In context, that statement asserts that Defendants’ method of incinerating the contaminated foam is entirely different than the Adelmann recycling process; it does not refer to the method of dismantling the appliances to obtain the contaminated foam in the first place. The record demonstrates that the statement is true — incineration is entirely different than the Adelmann process.

“No reasonable jury could find that the ‘no other company’ statement satisfies the deception element of a Lanham Act false advertising claim. The statement is ambiguous in its context because it could refer either to Plaintiffs or to JACO, and there is no evidence that it causes actual deception.”

Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. v. JACO Environmental, Inc., 2010 WL 1767313, No. 09-55168 (9th Cir. May 4, 2010).