Grand Theft Auto 5 Trademark Infringement with Speedo?

With Grand Theft Auto 5's release all gamers are excited.  But who would of thought that GTA and Speedo would get into a trademark spat?  One of the most highly anticipated video games of the year, Grand Theft Auto 5, recently released an online trailer. The trailer spread like wildfire, and one apparent detail of the new game may cause a big headache for Rockstar Games, the maker of the iconic and very popular racing game. That detail is the word “Speedophile” printed on the side of a Jetski, looking something like a logo.

The word Speedophile may have a simply descriptive meaning in urban slang terms (someone who likes going really fast). However, it’s possible that the swimwear manufacturer, Speedo could take issue with this particular logo blazened on the side of a Jetski. The main problem is that in this image, the first part of the word “Speedo” is a different colored font than “phile”. The result is that it looks like “Speedo” is somehow referenced. If the game is released with this detail (and it looks likely that it will be), Rockstar Games may get promptly slapped with a trademark infringement lawsuit.

And, given that Speedo has just shut down a porn site in Australia that featured their logo on a few pairs of swimwear, it seems they are keeping a sharp lookout for trademark infringers.

GTL Trademark Lawsuit by The Situation

Jersey Shore star Mike Sorrentino (aka The Situation) is making sure he stays on top.  Of his trademarks, that is.  Has sued, in the Florida Southern District Court, a newcomer who wants to use Sorrentino’s “GTL” brand to market lifestyle products reminiscent of Jersey Shore style and fashion.  MyGTLFuel.com is aimed toward viewers and fans of Jersey Shore, selling Energy Shots, Tanning Lotion and the like.  So does the owner, Dana Valentino, actually have any trademark rights that are superior to The Situation?  Or is he simply trying to cash in on the ‘Guido’ trend?  GTL Fuel, LLC which we believe is owned by Valentino, actually obtained a federal trademark registration for "GTF Fuel" claiming a first use of January 14, 2011. On the other hand The Situation has been diligent and has filed several trademarks, many of them including the term "GTL".  According to the complaint, The Situation's company, MPS Entertainments, Inc. claims its first use of GTL dates back to 2009 in connection with a variety of goods.  Also according to the Complaint the Situation alleges that a representative of Valentino approached the Situation for a license deal which did not materialize.  Due to the huge popularity of Jersey Shore, it’s not a bad business idea lately, but without any trademark protection Valentino’s site could be very short lived.  So will The Situation be able to prove his superior use?  We will see.  FYI, if you were wondering, according to The Situation's camp, GTL stands for "Gym, Tan, Laundry" whereas, Valentino's website says its stands for "Get The Lifestyle."

Trademark Infringement of Youngblood Timepieces

Fossil Watches was served a trade dress and trademark infringement lawsuit Monday, courtesy of Youngblood Timepieces, a newcomer to the fashion watch industry. Taking it one step further, the suit also named several high profile retailers as co-defendants. Macy’s, Nordstrom, Sears, Urban Outfitters, and Amazon.com were all named. The case is No. 11-cv-8175 in U.S. District Court for the district of Central California.

Youngblood Co Founder Patrick Martin said, when asked about the suit: "It is our intention to settle this matter with as little complication to all parties involved as possible. At the same time, we will not allow Fossil Inc. to continue to infringe on our brand name and image. Our legal team is pursuing all avenues of legal action available to us."

Although Younblood has only been around since 2007, several high profile celebrities have been wearing the watches, and undoubtedly the major names in fashion watches have been watching. According to Youngblood, they have been watching a bit too closely.

Hells Angels Trademark Infringement

A Hollywood clothing manufacturer, Wildfox Couture, LLC is being sued by Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation, otherwise known as Hells Angels. Although the name Hells Angels may seem generic, or at least non-corporate, they own the registered trademark and aren’t afraid to defend it. According to a story in the L.A. times on Tuesday, this suit is the latest in a long string of Hells Angels trademark cases. It was filed as Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation v. Wildfox Couture, LLC and Amazon.com, et al 2011-cv-11-4141 PSG, in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California.




According to Hells Angels attorney Fritz Clapp:

“We bring these lawsuits from time to time not just to punish but to educate. Somebody thought erroneously that Hells Angels is a generic term."



The T-shirts feature the slogan “My Boyfriend is a Hells Angel” on the front, and Hells Angels official trademarked angel wings on the back.

Louboutin's Trademark Suit Against YSL

Can a color be trademarked? The answer is it could be. Trademark registrations have been granted for colors in the past. (See here for the USPTO's standard). But it appears, for shoe designer Christian Louboutin, the answer is…no. Louboutin has been making shoes for the last few years with a trademarked “lacquered red sole.” The ubiquitous soles have turned up on many a red carpet, on the feet of many a celebrity. In fact, as CNN.com reports, even Jennifer Lopez has a song that mentions Louboutin’s in the lyrics. But recently, fellow shoemaker and competitor Yves Saint Laurent announced a new line of shoes featuring shiny red soles, and began production. Not surprisingly, the shoes sold well. But when Louboutin sued Laurent for trademark infringement and sought an injunction, things got sticky. Can something as simple as a color be trademarked? Well, Louboutin did in fact obtain a trademark registration for the red heels in 2008. But according to last week’s decision by a U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero in the Southern District of New York, it can’t. At least not in this case. The decision was based on the idea that any rule that denies an artist the use of a certain color in his or her craft is too restrictive. Specifically, Judge Marrero states, “Because in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition, the court finds that Louboutin is unlikely to be able to prove that its red outsole brand is entitled to trademark protection, even if it has gained enough public recognition in the market to have acquired secondary meaning.”


Although, it seems unlikely that Laurent just happened to start making red soled shoes a couple years after Louboutin had a hit with them. Both parties are scheduled to meet for a case management order this Wednesday. I think Louboutin clearly has attained a high level of secondary meaning for the public to associate the red heals strictly with Louboutin's and not other designer shoes. The outcome of this case will be a significant one for designers and artists of many types, no doubt.

Lamborghini Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

The Italian car maker Lamborghini wasted little time in filing a lawsuit (US District Court, State of Nevada, Case No. 2:11-cv-01154-ECR –RJJ) against the Palazzo resort in Las Vegas. The Palazzo recently opened an exotic car showroom, an Italian restaurant, and a merchandise gallery called Dal Toro. The Dal Toro logo bears an all-too-similar resemblance to Lamborghini’s classic raging bull logo. According to the Las Vegas Sun, the suit claims that the logos are “studied imitations of the Lamborghini trademarks.”

The owner of these businesses, Lorenzo Barracco, seemed unconcerned with the trademark infringement suit, and called it frivolous. But the fact that the logo represents businesses that are upscale and clearly Italian car-themed doesn’t help. Given that the logo’s color scheme, overall design and Italian name are all similar to Lamborghini, the coincidence is a little far-fetched.

The suit continues:
“Defendants’ advertisement, promotion and sale of the knockoff products is part

of a sophisticated and elaborate scheme to target Lamborghini, to create products that are similar in appearance to well-known Lamborghini products, and to trade upon the goodwill and reputation associated with Lamborghini and its high quality, distinctive product lines, including by deliberately misleading the public and the trade as to the authenticity, source, affiliation or sponsorship of defendants’ operations and products.”

Sprinkles Cupcakes Wages Trademark Lawsuit

Sprinkles Cupcakes gained huge popularity due to its delicious cupcakes and also to a helping hand from the PR gained from getting on the Oprah Winfrey and Martha Stewart show. The company which has locations in Beverly Hills, Chicago, New York and throughout the country, is taking aim at a newer store which opened in 2009, called Pink Sprinkles . Sprinkles Cupcake, owned by Candace Nelson, a celebrity judg

e on the reality television show Cupcake Wars, has filed a lawsuit for trademark infringement and under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (regarding the domain name it uses) in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut, all in connection with its federal registration for SPRINKLES CUPCAKE U.S. Reg. No. 3,250,609.

The case is a fairly straight forward trademark infringement claim. Will Pink Sprinkles claim that their addition of the word "Pink" is different enough to avoid infringement, or possibly do they have some other defense? Stay tuned.

DJ Pauly D Trademark Infringement

Several of MTV’s ‘The Jersey Shore’ stars have been applying for trademarks to be used in product lines of different varieties. The use of celebrity trademarks has been an increasingly-popular way to try and capitalize on minor-league fame. But apparently, Jersey Shore star DJ Pauly D will have a harder time than most. Unfortunately for him, there is already a “DJ Paulie D” who has had a registered trademark with the USPTO since 2008. The reality show star has applied for a trademark 3 times, and been rejected for likelihood of confusion.

To make matters worse for the MTV star, the original DJ Paulie D has filed a lawsuit against him. The suit (Paul Lis DJ Paulie Broadcasting LLC v. Paul DelVecchio Jr., 3:11-cv-01057-AWT, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut) claims trademark infringement, since, as Techdirt.com points out, any recent Google search will indicate that DJ Paulie D is a misspelling for the far-more popular DJ Pauly D of Jersey Shore. The original DJ Paulie D is asking for $4 million in damages. And it seems somewhat likely he’ll get some awards for damages, since he’s claiming MTV used metatags to intentionally redirect traffic away from him. Regardless of whether he gets any money from Viacom (MTV’s owner), he has already created a ton of publicity for himself.

Jay Z's Trademark Battle with Volcom

Apparently, Orange County-based surf/skate company Volcom finds Jay Z’s Roc Nation label’s logo a little too close for comfort. The clothing designer recently filed a trademark infringement suit (Volcom Inc. (VLCM), v. Roc Nation LLC, 8:11-cv-00489-JST-FFM, U.S. District Court, Central District of California).

The suit arises over the use of an inverted “double diamond” design common to both logos. While it’s true that Volcom, Inc. has priority of use with the logo (since 1991), Roc Nation claims its logo is unique and not an infringement. According the article on Bloomberg.com, Volcom has asked Beverly Hills-based Roc Nation to cease and desist use of the logo on several occasions. One of the main issues, according to Volcom, is that its subsidiary, Volcom Entertainment, uses the logo to market music-related merchandise, and sponsor bands. Volcom, Inc. has asked to be awarded triple damages from Roc Nation, LLC

Twitter Alleges Trademark Infringement

Recently, Twitter suspended two of its affiliates Twidroid and Uber Twitter for alleged trademark infringement and privacy violations. The interesting thing is that it appears that UberMedia, the owner and operator of the third-party Twitter applications Twidroid and Uber Twitter, is buying up a roster of apps that may possibly compete with Twitter in the future. The company started as a client of Twitter that provided applications to enhance Twitter’s functions.
Carolyn Penner, official spokesperson for Twitter issued this statement, which seems to downplay the suspension:

“We ask all developers in Twitter ecosystem to abide by a simple set of rules that are in the interests of our users, as well as the health and vitality of the platform as a whole.

We often take actions to enforce these rules; in fact, on an average day we turn off more than one hundred services that violate our API rules of the road. This keeps the ecosystem fair for everyone.

Today we suspended several applications, including UberTwitter, twidroyd and UberCurrent, which have violated Twitter policies and trademarks in a variety of ways. These violations include, but aren’t limited to, a privacy issue with private Direct Messages longer than 140 characters, trademark infringement, and changing the content of users’ Tweets in order to make money.

We’ve had conversations with UberMedia, the developer of these applications, about policy violations since April 2010, when they first launched under the name TweetUp – a term commonly used by Twitter users and a trademark violation. We continue to be in contact with UberMedia and hope that they will bring the suspended applications into compliance with our policies soon.”

Social Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook will probably become increasingly aggressive in their protection of trademarks, as the market for social networking applications and services continues to diversify.

Gibson Guitar sues Paper Jamz for Trademark Infringement

In the last few years, games such as Rock Band and Guitar Hero have turned everyday Joe’s into rock stars. Following this trend, the new toy guitars called “Paper Jamz” feature pre-programmed songs that can be played with ease by pretty much anyone with two hands. Apparently some ‘real’ guitar makers aren’t too crazy about all this competition. Gibson Guitar Corp. sued Wowwee U.S.A, Inc. (makers of Paper Jamz) last month in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, for Trademark Infringement (Case No. 2:10-cv-08884-RGK RZ).

The toy guitars were already being sold around the country at Target, Wal-Mart, Toys-R-Us, and pretty much anywhere else toys were being sold. Gibson sued the toy makers because the shape and design of some of the toy guitars mimicked their classic designs. A temporary restraining order was filed with the suit which the court granted, and most stores actually had to remove the toy guitars from their shelves at the height of the holiday shopping season

Hard Rock Cafe Trademark Issues: Not Too Happy About Free Publicity

Among the already-raunchy assortment of reality TV shows, the new “Rehab: Party at the Hard Rock Hotel” is pushing the envelope. And the Hard Rock Cafe International, Inc. chain (a different company than Las Vegas Hard Rock Hotel & Casino) doesn’t find the debauchery very entertaining. The Hard Rock Café recently filed a law suit for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and a variety of other charges regarding the tarnishing of Hard Rock’s image. Hard Rock Hotel is a licensee of the Hard Rock brand. But Hard Rock Café now wants to revoke that license agreement.

The case is No. 1:10cv07244-UA, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

According to the suit, Hard Rock Café was founded as a celebration of Rock and Roll, good times, and fun. But sexual harassment, violence and crime are not part of its credo. Apparently, TruTV has no plans for canceling, or altering the show, which it hails as a main revenue source. If Hard Rock Café wins, Hard Rock Hotel may have to change its name.

Trademark Infringement Pancakes v. Prayer

The International House of Prayer in Pasadena, along with another house of prayer in Kansas City, MO are attracting some attention – unwanted attention. International House of Pancakes, Inc. (IHOP) filed suit last week for trademark infringement. The case is No. 2:10-cv-06622-SJO, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

This might be a tough case for the pancake people, for a couple of reasons. First is the issue of likelihood of confusion. One organization is a light n’ fluffy breakfast food chain. The other is a small, aesthetically different house of worship. Additionally, the house of prayer in Pasadena actually uses the acronym PIHOP.

The Kansas City organization may have a tougher time, however. According to the complaint, the International House of Prayer “intended to misappropriate the fame and notoriety of the household name IHOP to help promote and make recognizable their religious organization.”

Facebook Trademark Infringement with Teachbook

You can bet social media megalith Facebook is actively scanning the horizon for would be intellectual property infringers. And a few weeks ago it found one. A new online community for teachers, called “Teachbook,” is using a similar networking platform to Facebook. Facebook fears that adding the “–book” suffix to words could create a whole plethora of networking Websites for different societal groups. This, in turn, would dilute the trademark brand.

Facebook sued for cybersquatting, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution in the US District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:2010cv03654). According to the complaint:

"The 'book' component of the Facebook mark has no descriptive meaning and is arbitrary and highly distinctive in the context of online communities and networking Web sites," the complaint explains. "If others could freely use 'generic plus BOOK' marks for online networking services targeted to that particular generic category of individuals, the suffix 'book' could become a generic term for 'online community/networking services' or 'social networking services.' That would dilute the distinctiveness of the Facebook marks, impairing their ability to function as unique and distinctive identifiers of Facebook's goods and services."

If the past is any indication of how this suit will go, Teachbook will may change its name. A startup online travel company called Placebook recently changed its name to TripTrace after a run-in with Facebook.

Black Sabbath Trademark Dispute: Ozzy vs. Iommi

Last year, Anthony “Tommy” Iommi, long-time guitarist for Black Sabbath, and Ozzy Osbourne got in contact with each other about the band. However, this new Black Sabbath collaboration didn’t involve any music. John “Ozzy” Osbourne sued Iommi for trademark infringement in the U.S. District Court (case no. 1:09-cv-04947)

Apparently, in 2000, Iommi filed a trademark application with the USPTO, to register the Black Sabbath trademark in his name only. Ozzy’s attorneys caught wind of this trademark hijacking, and filed suit in May of last year. According to the suit Ozzy was “the driving force behind the Black Sabbath band.” But Iommi referenced a 1980 agreement (when Ozzy originally left the band) in which Ozzy had surrendered his right to the band name. But in 1997, as part of the “Ozzfest” tour, Black Sabbath had reunited, and played for a couple years. Ozzy claimed this new arrangement superseded the 1980 agreement.

Fortunately, last week Ozzy and Iommi were able to settle the case on good terms. In the new agreement, all four original members of the band (including Geezer Butler and Bill Ward) are to share the trademark equally.

Lady Gaga Protects Her Trademark and Sues Knockoff Merchandisers

Lady Gaga started her 2010 “Monster Ball” tour with a pre-emptive trademark infringement lawsuit. In the past, non-licensed merchandise vendors were tolerated outside large concerts, so long as they didn’t interfere too much with legitimate merchandise sales. But lately, the music industry is taking greater measures to remain profitable. These cases, known as “John Doe” cases (because of the hundreds of “John Doe’s” named as defendants), are becoming more and more frequent.
Lady Gaga’s merchandise company is Bravado International, a division of Universal Music Group. The case was filed under trademark infringement, citing the Lanham Act, unfair competition, and right to publicity (Bravado International Group Merchandising Services Inc., v. John Does 1-100, 1:10-cv-04942-RJH, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York).

The Monster Ball tour is running from July 1 until sometime next April. Bravado International is asking the court to grant permission for law enforcement to confiscate any unauthorized merchandise at any show during the tour.

Mike Tyson Trademark Fight with Michael Landrum for the Title

Most people recognize “Iron Mike” as a long-standing nickname for Mike Tyson. Apparently, there may have been a previous “Iron Mike.” Michael Wayne Landrum, a small-time L.A. boxer is suing Mike Tyson for trademark infringement to the tune of $115,000,000. The complaint was filed June 28, 2010 in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California (case no. 2:2010-cv-04795).

Michael Landrum last boxed in 1985, and included with the complaint is a document from 1996, a letter from the California State Athletic Commission, stating that his “professional ring name was Iron Mike Landrum.” Landrum is suing for Trademark Infringement, and claims to have a registered trademark with the USPTO. It’s number 66404, which doesn’t appear to be a valid trademark number.

Is Mike Tyson still using the phrase "Iron Mike"? Are there any abandonment issues. How will priority be be duked out? All questions that will likely be issues in the litigation.

Rick Ross Trademark Infringement Suit Against Def Jam and Jay-Z

Ricky Donnell Ross (or ‘Freeway’ Ricky Ross) was an L.A. drug kingpin who was arrested in 1996, and released from federal prison in May 2009. But most people know Rick Ross (sometimes Rick Ro$$) as a rapper from Miami who’s sold millions of records over the past five years or so. Both men have made fortunes, but ‘Freeway’ Ricky’s fortune was short lived – and now he wants it back. He is suing Rick Ro$$ for trademark infringement in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California (case no. 2:10-cv-04528).

Rapper Rick Ro$$’s real name is William Leonard Roberts II. He adopted his stage name after learning about Freeway Ricky’s drug empire in the eighties. According to some reports, Freeway Ricky was making as much as $3 million a day, selling cocaine in L.A. and across the country. He got his nickname after purchasing several properties along the Harbor Freeway. Freeway Ricky was arrested after he was turned in by his cocaine source, Danilo Blandon. Blandon, incidentally, was also the CIA’s contact to the contras in the Iran-Contra scandal. This connection is referenced in several contemporary rap lyrics.

Freeway Ricky is going after the whole Def Jam records group, not just William Roberts (Ro$$). The complaint names Sean Carter (Jay-Z) as former president of Def Jam, Maybach Music Group (Ro$$’s label), UMG Recordings, Inc., and Slip-n-Slide Records, among others. Adding to the spectacle, a reality TV production company, Sacred Cow Productions, Inc. (Deadliest Catch, Ice Road Truckers, etc…) announced a new 2010 show “A Year with Freeway Ricky Ross.” The show will chronicle Ricky’s attempts to regain some of his former fortune through legal means.

Freeway Ricky doesn’t actually have any registered trademarks on his name, but he claims that William Roberts’ moniker capitalized on his fame, and now he has a hard time distinguishing himself as the “real” Ricky Ross.

Dr. Dre's Trademark Cause of Action Gets Dismissed

When hip-hop label Death Row was acquired by WIDEawake in 2009, they promptly decided to re-issue some Death Row greats, most notably Dr. Dre’s 1992 album ‘The Chronic’ in the 'Re-Lit' album/DVD set. Dr. Dre was not part of the re-issue process, and quickly sued WIDEawake Entertainment Group, Inc.

In the United States District Court for the Central District of California (case no. 10cv01019), Dr. Dre sued for royalties owed, but also for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and false advertising, citing the Lanham Act, among other statutes.

But a federal judge threw out the trademark-related portions of the claim last week (with leave to amend). Judge Christina A. Snyder decided that since the original picture of Dr. Dre from the 1992 album was also used on the re-issue, no affiliation was implied. More specifically, the Order states the following:

"As to plaintiff’s allegation that defendants have used his name and likeness, including the original photograph from the jacket cover of “The Chronic,” the Court finds that these allegations fail to state a claim that defendants have over-represented plaintiff’s contribution to “Re-Lit,” given that defendants accurately identify plaintiff as the author of the original masters and that defendant used a substantially same photograph from the original album jacket cover, and did not use a current picture so to imply that plaintiff recently contributed to the re-issued album."

Dr. Dre will continue pursuing the claim for royalties owed.

Tommy Burger Trademark Infringement Family Affair

Trademarks are valuable property. Business partners, friends, and even family members can be split over trademark rights. Take the case of Original Tommy’s World Famous Hamburgers here in L.A. When the original Tommy Koulax died in 1992, he left the franchise in the hands of some of his children and relatives. According to an article in today’s Los Angeles Business Journal, one of his children is trying to start up a Tommy’s-inspired company, and apparently breaking some family ties doing it.

What made Tommy’s world famous was arguably its chili, not hamburgers. In fact, Tommy’s chili recipe is protected by a trade secret. In 2008, Tommy’s son, Tommy Koulax Jr., started an online business selling chili. “Tommy’s Original Chili Factory” received a cease and desist letter from Original Tommy’s (jointly owned by other siblings and relatives). Since then, the name has been changed to “Tommy Jr’s Chili Factory,” but the Tommy Jr. crew is still under attack. They have been sued in California Central District Court for trademark infringement and unfair competition, Tomdan Enterprises, Inc. v. Tommy’s Original Chili Factory, Inc. et al., CV 09-3960 JSL (C.D. Cal. 2009).


It may be a tough case for Tommy Jr. to win. His logo is very similar in style and color to the Original Tommy’s logo, and on his products he claims to be the “son of the originator and founder of Tommy’s World Famous Hamburgers.”