Category Archives: Trademark Infringement

Even more Dropbox

Posted on by

Now it’s getting interesting. In a previous post about Dropbox I guessed that the extensions for time to oppose the Dropbox trademark registrations were likely to be over whether Dropbox was descriptive. Yousendit was granted an additional 60 days to oppose, but Officeware (owner of filesanywhere.com) and Box.net have filed their oppositions, not because of a contention that Dropbox is descriptive, but because of claims of prior use and likelihood of confusion with their marks.
FilesAnywhere Opposition to Dropbox Registration
Box.net Opposition to Dropbox Registration

A reader brought to my attention Officeware’s trademark infringement lawsuit in Texas, alleging priority for filesanywhere.com’s common-law trademark use of “Dropbox.”
FilesAnywhere v. Dropbox Complaint

Filseanywhere asserts use of “Dropbox” since 2004 and use of a blue open box logo since 2006. Dropbox was founded in 2007.

Officeware is owned by Immediatek, a company traded on the OTC Bulletin Board. Immediatek had revenues of about $2 million last year, but a net loss of $800,000. Billionaire Mark Cuban is a major investor of Immediatek. Dropbox is a private company, but had revenues of more than $100 million in 2010 and has significant venture capital funding.

Overseas business relationship goes off with a hitch

Posted on by

Webb v. Trailer City & Changzhou Nanxiashu Tool Co.

Maybe not an original story. American businessman has trailer designs. American businessman meets Chinese factory and pays for the tooling so Chinese factory can make trailers. Chinese factory makes trailers and ships to US so American businessman can sell them. American businessman leaves Chinese factory for a new, better Chinese factory. Old Chinese factory finds Oregon retail outlet to sell trailers using same plans and tooling. American businessman sues Chinese factory and the Oregon retail outlet.

LaCrosse and Danner go after alleged knock-off boots

Posted on by

In Oregon federal district court, LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. has filed a trademark infringement complaint against Pro Line Manufacturing Co. LLC. Danner, Inc. (owned by LaCrosse) has filed a similar complaint against Rocky Brands, Inc. Both complaints allege the infringement of two popular boots’ trade dress. Trade dress is the entire image or overall appearance of a product, and can include a product’s size, shape, color combinations, texture, or graphics.
LaCrosse Footwear Complaint
LaCrosse Footwear Complaint

In addition to proving that the boots have acquired distinctiveness and that consumers are likely to be confused, LaCrosse and Danner must also prove that their trade dress is non-functional. A product’s features are functional if there is a competitive need to use them, they are essential to the use or purpose of the product, or they affect the product’s cost or quality.

Pendleton v. Pendleton

Posted on by

Pendleton Round-Up, a rodeo in Pendleton, Oregon, has applied to register on an intent-to-use basis the trademark “Pendleton Round-Up” for its cologne, and has allegedly permitted the maker of its cologne to apply for a registration on an intent-to-use basis, “Pendleton Fragrances.” Pendleton Woolen Mills, a venerable Oregon company famous for wool blankets, also sells scented bath products, and asserting common law trademark rights for fragrances, has sued the Pendleton rodeo for trademark infringement in the federal district court of Oregon:

Pendleton Woolen Mills v. Pendleton Round Up

Update: Oregon Public Broadcasting reported on the story last week and will discuss the issuer further on Think Out Loud this morning. Looking at the picture of the cologne, the Let’er Buck slogan and the bucking horse logo clearly identify and distinguish the Pendleton Round-Up rodeo as the source of the cologne. The issue Pendleton Woolen Mills has with the rodeo must be with the registrations and licensing.