Whirlpool wins trademark lawsuit

A jury has returned a verdict in favor of Whirlpool Corporation in its suit against a company for trademark infringement.
The Benton Harbor-based appliance maker filed a lawsuit against Monroe, North Carolina-based Filters Fast in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in October 2017, according to Whirlpool today. The suit alleged Filters Fast violated Whirlpool Corporation trademarks, including EveryDrop, Whirlpool, Maytag, PuriClean, Amana, JennAir and KitchenAid.

Court documents argued Filters Fast was referencing Whirlpool Corporation’s brands and using images of genuine Whirlpool products to “sell non-genuine, third-party branded water filters,” Whirlpool said. Whirlpool said the filters did not meet its "quality standards" and were not certified to remove "as many contaminants" as genuine Whirlpool filters. The jury awarded Whirlpool $5.8 million after finding “Filters Fast’s marketing practices were willful and were likely to deceive consumers,” according to Whirlpool. Filters Fast did not respond to requests for comment at press time. “Whirlpool succeeds by ensuring that our brands are an extension of our promises to those who buy our products,” said Doug Searles, general manager of the Consumer Products Group and WLabs, Whirlpool Corporation. “We are grateful for the jury’s assistance in helping us keep those promises and at the same time, helping to protect the rights of consumers to make an informed purchasing decision with the confidence they will receive the products and performance that they desire.”

 reference

Japan’s Muji sues Singapore retailer Iuiga for alleged trademark infringement

Japanese household and consumer goods company Ryohin Keikaku (also known as Muji) has filed a lawsuit against Iuiga, a Singapore company, for trademark infringement.
Muji’s president Satoru Matsuzaki said that the lawsuit against Iuiga was filed with Singapore’s courts in late January.
A spokesman from Muji told that the claim against Iuiga is for “trademark infringement and passing-off under Singapore law”.

The Japanese retail giant is seeking for orders to stop the use of the Muji trademark in Iuiga’s statements. It is also seeking compensation for damages and losses.
The Singapore firm is alleged by Muji to have used statements such as “Muji same manufacturer” and “direct from Muji manufacturer” on its e-commerce website and in its physical store.
“We requested Iuiga to disclose information on their manufacturing factories to verify their statements. However, we did not receive any response,” Muji’s spokesperson said.
The Japanese firm added that its manufacturing contractors have denied manufacturing or supplying products to Iuiga. Muji, which is known for making label-free lifestyle products, had in late 2018 said it was investigating claims that a “third party” was able to sell items made by Muji’s contracted manufacturers.

 reference

In-N-Out Files Trademark Lawsuit Over Puma's New Drive-Thru Shoes

The chain restaurant claims that Puma used In-N-Out’s federally registered palm tree mark and design elements similar to the red and yellow In-N-Out logo and clothing.

In-N-Out filed a trademark infringement lawsuit Friday against Puma for using the chain restaurant's trademarks and trade dress without permission in the launch of their two new shoe products.
Cali-0 Drive-Thru and California Drive-Thru shoes were designed in collaboration with streetwear designer Mike Cherman.
The iconic fast food joint claims that Puma used In-N-Out's federally registered palm tree mark and design elements similar to the red and yellow In-N-Out logo and apparel.

In-N-Out claims Puma has marketed its shoes in connection with burgers and other items associated with burgers, which is the food product primarily served at In-N-Out restaurants, according to the lawsuit.
The shoes have caused several instances of confusion on social media with publications and consumers mistakenly believing there is a connection between In-N-Out and the Puma Drive Thru Shoes, court documents state.
In-N-Out is asking Puma to cease production of the Drive-Thru shoes and any related advertisements. In addition to unspecified damages, they're also asking to be awarded any profits related to sales of the shoes.







 reference

Facebook sues four Chinese companies over trademark infringement

Facebook is taking legal action against a cluster of Chinese websites that sell fake accounts, likes and followers both on Facebook itself and on Instagram. The company announced the legal action in a short blog post late Friday afternoon (a move unusual enough to pique our curiosity a little). Of course, the fact that Facebook isn’t allowed in China might be a complexifier, in Bezos-speak.
Facebook is taking legal action against a cluster of Chinese websites that sell fake accounts, likes and followers both on Facebook itself and on Instagram. The company announced the legal action in a short blog post late Friday afternoon (a move unusual enough to pique our curiosity a little). Of course, the fact that Facebook isn’t allowed in China might be a complexifier, in Bezos-speak.

The lawsuit names Xiu Network Science and Technology Company, Xiu Feishu Science and Technology Company, Xiufei Book Technology Co., Home Network (Fujian) Technology Co., Ltd. and three people affiliated with those operations. TechCrunch reached out to Facebook for clarification about the scope of the fraudulent activity and the reason behind its decision to escalate these concerns, though didn’t receive much clarification.

 reference

Trademark Infringement Suit filed over Imitation Hair Supplement

On February 25, 2019, BeSweet Creations LLC, manufacturer of the popular gummy bear vitamin supplements “Sugar Bear Hair,” filed suit in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida against rival supplement producer, TrueReflections Inc., alleging that the company violated the Federal Trademark Act (Lanham Act).
In the complaint, the plaintiff details its efforts over the past several years to gain brand recognition for the product through extensive social media campaigns, ecommerce websites, podcast promotions and via the product’s website, sugarbearhair.com. The supplement in question features a recognizable “bear” shape and was trademarked by the company in 2015, as a strategic attempt to make the product stand out in the marketplace.

Plaintiff claims that concurrent with Sugar Bear hair supplement success in the marketplace, the defendant began to routinely use trade dress and trademarks that are intended to imitate Sugar Bear Hair products. Plaintiff alleges that side-by-side images of the two products’ packaging reveal a striking similarity. Plaintiff argues that consumers who encounter the defendant’s product are likely to believe that the imitation product is affiliated with the Sugar Bear Hair line of products. Specifically, BeSweet Creations is alleging that the defendant willfully, intentionally and deliberately attempted to trade upon the goodwill and consumer recognition that BeSweet Creations has cultivated for Sugar Bear Hair supplements in order to increase sales of their product.
The suit brings causes of action for trademark infringement and false designations of origin; seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to stop defendant from using plaintiff’s design, trademark or any confusingly similar mark or designation; and seeks to prevent the defendant from using any confusingly similar trade dress in the connection with the sale of its supplements.

 reference

Kim Kardashian Sues Fashion Company for Using Her Image Without Permission to Sell Knockoff Outfits

Kim Kardashian West is suing Missguided USA a day after blasting fashion labels for copying her looks.
In documents obtained by ET, Kim filed a lawsuit against the online retailer on Wednesday for using her name and image without permission. Kim is asking the court for damages in an amount no less than 10 million, disgorgement -- which is the act of giving up something such as the profits obtained by illegal or unethical acts on demand or by legal compulsion -- of Missguided’s profits, and for a permanent injunction restraining Missguided from future infringement.

The lawsuit states that “Missguided has not only knocked-off the clothing of other designers, but it has unabashedly misappropriated the rights of celebrities like Kardashian in selling these knock-offs on its websites.”
Per the suit, Kim is suing for “violation of statutory right of publicity, violation of common law right of publicity, false designation of origin, trademark infringement, common law trademark infringement.”

 reference

Looking for more information from world of trademarks?

Browse our previous news & insights