Category: Trade Secret

Share via email

By Rene Dial

First Descents files suit against Eddie Bauer for trademark infringement and cancellation of trademarks in the District of Colorado.

First Descents is an organization that offers young cancer fighters and survivors a free week long outdoor adventure to assist them in gaining back their confidence and reclaim their lives.  You can read more at firstdescents.org.  In the complaint First Descents claims to have been using the trademarked name since 2001.  They received their trademark on March 11, 2003 for sport camps namely a motivational camp for people with cancer.  First Descents sells apparel nationwide as a means of raising revenue for their camps.  According to the complaint they attempted to add the clothing classification of goods with their trademark on September 23, 2008 but the mark was refused on December 22, 2008 because of the Eddie Bauer First Ascents and First Descents trademarks for clothing filed on June 2, 2008.

As the complaint was recently filed on August 10, 2011 Eddie Bauer probably has not responded yet.  I cannot imagine what their response will be in their answer.  Before filing suit I can only speculate that First Descents’ attorney served a cease and desist letter on Eddie Bauer requesting that they stop using their mark and putting them on notice of First Descents’ claim.  As if Eddie Bauer should not have already been on notice of First Descents use of the mark for a motivational sport camp for people with cancer.  A comon law trademark search would have uncovered First Descents’ use of the mark in connection with apparel that they allege to have been selling since 2001.

The complaint infringement of a registered trademark and cites15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—

(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or

(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,…

 This is my first time ever hearing about First Descents and I think they are doing an awesome service for cancer fighters/survivors.  I myself just recently completed chemotherapy and am scheduled for radiation therapy to start soon.  All I wanted to do during chemotherapy was to get back in the water and surf and be able to continue running events with friends.  Testing myself through physical activity during and after treatment was a way of telling myself that I am still alive and still have a life to live.  Zies Widerman and Malek recently hired me during my chemotherapy and allowed me the time off to recover when I needed it.  Employers like ZWM and organizations like First Descents do our communities and cancer communities a great service by giving fighters and survivors alike more reasons to move forward.

I may be a little biased but I think First Descent has a very good argument.  They have been using the name continuously since 2001 and should be able to prove that they have been selling clothing around that time.   Their case would be even more bolstered had they originally filed a classification of goods for clothing.

Have a great weekend!

Share via email

Aaron Thalwitzer

Juries. As I may have previously mentioned, I really like them. They can even the playing field, whether it’s man versus the state, man versus man, or mega-corporation versus smaller-but-still-pretty-big-corporation.

Case in point: toy titan Mattel just got slapped down by toy has-been MGA Entertainment Inc., maker of Bratz dolls, to the tune of $88.5 million in damages. The question of whether the designer invented the trademarks related to Bratz on his own time or in the course of his employment with Mattel was decided by some people off the street, who found willful misappropriation of trade secrets by Mattel. The jury decided that the “inventions” weren’t made “at any time during his employment”.

MGA is now asking for treble damages based on said willfulness.

Mattel can rest easy however, since the jury did find that MGA had interfered with Mattel’s contract with the designer of the Bratz line, and awarded Mattel $10,000 in damages. Woo-hoo!

This case has been going on for seven years, since 2004, back when Bratz were still cool among seven-year-old girls wearing lots of make-up. Basically, Mattel accused MGA of stealing its designs by hiring a key employee.

“We remain committed to protecting the intellectual property that is at the heart of business success,” Mattel CEO Robert Eckert said afterwards via email.

Mattel will move for a new trial, which is rarely granted, and then appeal.

What we can all take from this is to get a good lawyer to draw up your employment contracts, preferably one that knows a thing or two about intellectual property. The designer in question had an employment contract with Mattel, but the provision regarding assignment of inventions was ambiguous – therefore, it was a question of fact and for the jury to decide. If you’re a company, big or small, there’s no excuse for bad contracts, unless you’d rather have a jury figure out what you meant.

This is a complete reversal of the previous jury trial. In 2008 MGA was ordered to pay Mattel $100 million, which was thrown out on appeal last year, allowing MGA a second bite at the apple, and a chance to formulate a new strategy.

So, MGA accused Mattel of forging credentials to sneak into toy fairs to steal trade secrets and of concealing evidence of these activities. Apparently, even toy biz IP is rife with corporate espionage.

According to Jack Lerner, a professor at USC Gould School of Law, this new evidence permitted by the Appeals Court allowed MGA to present a “large canvas” to the jury on retrial, whereas the first trial was more restricted in scope.

As usual, Mattel had a chance to settle this thing but took the litigation route, for which the markets are now punishing them. Better luck next time.

For more information see Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., No. CV 04-09049-DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Calif.).

Share via email

by Philip Zies

copyright_officeCopyright Registrations of computer programs without trade secret information require a completed application form, a filing fee, and a deposit of identifying portions of the program (the first 25 pages and last 25 pages of the source code).  When the computer program contains trade secret information, however, a different procedure is followed.

First, include a cover letter stating that the submission contains trade secrets.  The cover letter can attach the page of the source code containing the copyright notice, if any.

Second, for a completely new computer program or for a revised computer program where the revisions are in the first 25 pages and last 25 pages of the source code, the deposit of identifying portions of the program is either:  the first 25 pages and last 25 pages of the source code with portions containing trade secrets redacted; or the first 10 pages and last 10 pages of the source code with no portions redacted; or the first 25 pages and last 25 pages of object code plus any 10 or more consecutive pages of source code with no portions redacted; or, for programs of 50 pages of source code or less, the entire source code with portions containing trade secrets redacted.  For revised versions of computer programs where the revisions are not in the first 25 pages and last 25 pages of source code, the deposit of identifying portions of the program is either:  20 pages of source code containing revisions with no portions redacted; or any 50 pages of source code containing revisions with portions containing trade secrets redacted. If depositing redacted portions of the source code, the redacted portions must be proportionately less than the visible portions of the original code and the visible portions must represent an appreciable amount of the original code.

While trade secret protection is a matter of state law, following these procedures should enable an author to seek federal registration of a computer program containing trade secrets, without waiving the trade secrets contained therein.  You can view the US Copyright Office Circular on Copyright Registration for Computer Programs by clicking here.


This article has also been posted on JD Supra.

Subscribe

Login



TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 13182 access attempts in the last 7 days.