GSC Logistics, Inc. v. Star Galaxy Logistics, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22938 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
Plaintiff was granted a preliminary injunction against defendant to prevent defendant from using the name GSC Trucking. The court noted that defendant did not oppose the motion or show any likelihood of harm; as such plaintiff need only post a nominal bond of $1,000.
Village Pizzeria Enterprises, LLC v. Cohen, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22363 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Defendant purchased one of several San Francisco area Village Pizzaria restaurants from the Plaintiff. Defendant later operated a Village Pizzaria restaurant in Los Angeles with Plaintiff’s blessing. Defendant then opened a new restaurant under the mark apparently without Plaintiff’s blessing. Plaintiff did not operate in Los Angeles. Plaintiff was awarded a permanent injunction against future infingement but was not awarded damages under California unfair competition law because plaintiff could not show actual lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.
Stanislaus Custodial Deputy Sheriffs’ Association v. Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Stanislaus, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21729 (E.D. Cal. 2010).
Plaintiff, a nonprofit collective bargaining association, sued Defendant, an educational nonprofit, for infringement of its trade name. Although most claims arose under state law, Plaintiff included a claim for misappropriation of trade name under the Lanham act and brought suit in Federal court. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion with leave to amend. Read the rest of this entry »
Jurin v. Google, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18208 (E.D. Cal., 2010)
Plaintiff sued Defendant (Google), over its Adwords keyword suggestion tool which suggests Plaintiff’s trademarked product name as a keyword for Adword pay-per-click advertising to Plaintiff’s competitors. The court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss on several of the causes of action, including Lanham act claims. Read the rest of this entry »
Mac’s Shell Service, Inc., et al. v. Shell Oil Products Co. LLC, et al., 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2203
While this is not a trademark case per se, it touches on some trademark issues. Several Shell franchises sued the Shell franchisor from changing terms in its agreement that signficantly increased the franchisees rent. The franchisees renewed under the new terms and sued under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) for constructive termination/nonrenewal. The Court held that in order to be a constructive termination or constructive nonrenewal, the franchisees have to actually terminate the relationship. “Thus, when given its ordinary meaning, the Act is violated only if an agreement for the use of a trademark, purchase or motor fuel, or lease of a premises is ‘put [to] an end’ or ‘annul[ed] or destroy[ed].’ Conduct that does not force an ende to the franchise, in contrast, is not prohibited by the Act’s plaine terms.” (pp. 14-15).
