Seattle Trademark Lawyer

The Seattle P-I: It’ll be a sad day when the printing presses stop.

This week may mark the end of the the 146 year-old Seattle Post-Intelligencer, one of two daily newspapers here. The loss of jobs — and, more importantly, the loss of viewpoints — will impoverish our city. That includes the public, business, and legal communities that have an interest in trademark issues.

We’ve been lucky to have the P-I reporting trademark news all these years. Here’s just a sampling of articles from 2009 we’re likely to miss when the paper closes its doors:

• “Trademark lawsuit against Eddie Bauer dropped” (March 11);

• “Inside Entrepreneurship: Learn trademark basics to avoid unnecessary costs” (March 5);

• “Tour-bound Phish asks judge to reel in bootleggers” (March 4);

• “Laughing Buddha Brewing will take a new name” (Feb. 23);

• “Microsoft promotes its top intellectual property lawyer” (Feb. 19); and

• “Experience Hendrix wins judgment in vodka lawsuit” (Feb. 17).

Granted, some of these stories are from the Associated Press; some were reported by The Seattle Times; and some came from the P-I’s Big Blog, which hopefully will continue even after the P-I stops printing content on paper. STL covered some of these issues, too. But the loss of the P-I adding to the mix will really hurt.

It’s a sad time for Seattleites. While we get our news — including trademark law news — from lots of sources, we’ll be poorer when those sources don’t include the P-I.

Photo credit: The Seattle Times

I’m happy to say I’m over the hump. After a trial and trademark law classes three times a week, I’m as ready for spring break as my students. I knew I’d have to slow down my posting a little, but hopefully that’s now behind me. Thanks for hanging in there! And wish me luck in Vegas this weekend while I enjoy a little March Madness action!

In 2008, AdJuggler, Inc., sued Adjog.com in the Western District for trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and other forms of unfair competition. 

AdJuggler places online advertisements. It alleged that Adjog.com registered the Adjog.com domain name and began using ADJOG on a Web site in connection with “various services including ad serving and ad serving management and related solutions on the Internet.” AdJuggler alleged this use created a likelihood of confusion with its ADJUGGLER registered trademark.

Adjog.com did not answer AdJuggler’s complaint. As a consequence, on March 9, AdJuggler obtained a default judgment.

The judgment transfers the Adjog.com domain name to AdJuggler. Judge Robert Bryan also found the case was “exceptional” and awarded AdJuggler its attorney’s fees. The court directed AdJuggler to file a statement of fees within twenty days. The court did not award damages.

The case cite is AdJuggler, Inc. v. Adjog.com, No. 08-5627 (W.D. Wash. March 9, 2009).

Experience Hendrix, LLC, has sued HendrixLicensing.com, Ltd., d/b/a Hendrix Artwork, for trademark infringement.

The complaint, filed in the Western District on March 5, alleges that HendrixLicensing.com and its owner, Andrew Pitsicalis, sell products under the HENDRIX, JIMI HENDRIX, and HENDRIX ARTWORK word marks, and Jimi Hendrix “headshot” and “signature” design marks. The suit also alleges that HendrixLicensing.com wrongly describes its goods as being endorsed by Jimi Hendrix’s family.

If the suit sounds familiar, it’s because Experience Hendrix last month obtained a stipulated $3.2 million judgment and permanent injunction against Electric Hendrix, LLC, and its owner, Craig Dieffenbach, for their use of similar Hendrix marks in connection with the sale of vodka. (STL post here.)

In the instant suit, Experience Hendrix alleges that Mr. Pitsicalis has worked with Mr. Dieffenbach and Electric Hendrix, and was deposed in the Electric Hendrix case. Experience Hendrix alleges it gave Mr. Pitsicalis notice of the court’s injunction against Electric Hendrix and Mr. Dieffenbach, but HendrixLicensing.com continues to use the Hendrix name and signature in promoting its products without Experience Hendrix’s permission.

The suit does not name Mr. Dieffenbach, nor does it suggest he has violated the terms of the court’s injunction against Electric Hendrix and him.

Defendants have not yet filed an answer.

The case cite is Experience Hendrix, LLC v. HendrixLicensing.com, Ltd., No. 09-285 (W.D. Wash.).

Oregon speciality lighting manufacturer Laughing Rabbit has been busy with trademark issues up here in Seattle. It settled its differences with defendant UView Ultraviolet Systems Inc. over UView’s allegedly infringing use of FREEDOM in connection with flashlights, and on Feb. 26 filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal withdrawing those claims.

The very next day, it filed a trademark infringement suit against Photon Light Boards, Inc., alleging that defendant’s PHOTON-branded illuminated skateboards (depicted above) are likely to confuse consumers with Laughing Rabbit’s use of PHOTON in connection with microlights, penknives, and headlamps.

The case cites are Laughing Rabbit, Inc. v. Uview Ultraviolet Systems, Inc., No. 08-1637 (W.D. Wash.), and Laughing Rabbit, Inc. v. Photon Light Boards, Inc., No. 09-264 (W.D. Wash.).