Monday, June 13, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits


The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


THE LEARNING COMPANY, A DIVISION OF HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT PUBLISHING COMPANY and HMH CONSUMER COMPANY LTD. v. ZYNGA INC.
DISTRICT OF MASSACUSSETTS (BOSTON)
1:11-CV-10894
FILED: 5/18/2011

Joint development projects are going to be governed primarily by the written contract between the parties. If there is no contract, you will often get into all kinds of disputes about the ownership of the new intellectual property that has been developed. In this instance, there appears to be a dispute about either the ownership, or the existence of a license to use, the “Oregon Trail” name. The Plaintiff could very well still own the name in the context of online games and the Defendant might, depending on the facts of this case, have a license to use the name. These issues are generally spelled out very clearly in written joint development contracts.

The Learning Company and Zynga are game developers and the Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendant is about to launch a new online game named “Oregon Trail”, which is the name the Plaintiff already uses for an existing game. The parties were working together at some point on jointly developing the game that is now allegedly being launched solely by Zynga.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, an award of profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1500.


EMERGENCY ESSENTIALS v. NAMECHEAP and BLUEHOST
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:11-CV-00411
FILED: 5/04/2011

This is a situation where any website, web host, domain name registrar or the like needs to be very careful. Once you receive notice of an alleged trademark infringement you must take action to stop providing services to that alleged infringer or your business may be liable as a contributory infringer.

Plaintiff Emergency Essentials is a company specializing in selling food storage and other emergency preparedness supplies. Someone registered the “eemergencyessentials.com” domain name and launched a website competing against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims registered trademarks in the name and has sued the domain name registrar and the web host on the basis that they had knowledge of the infringement and failed and refused to stop the infringement and continued to provide aid to the infringer.

Emergency Essentials alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting, contributory trademark infringement, unfair practices, deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and negligence. The prayer for relief requests injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages, ordering Defendants to perform corrective advertising, statutory damages in the amount of $100,000 per each counterfeit mark, statutory damages up to $150,000 per violation of the Utah E-Commerce Integrity Act, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1501.