This is an original piece from the eary 1900s before many places had running water, it was the base for a bowl to wash up. solid oak and very cute!
Friday, July 9, 2010
Early 1900s Oak Washstand SOLD
This is an original piece from the eary 1900s before many places had running water, it was the base for a bowl to wash up. solid oak and very cute!
Monday, June 21, 2010
Century America Sues On Three Design Patents
On June 10, 2010, cabinet and hardware designer and retailer Century America, LLC (Grand Rapids, Michigan) sued Knobs and Pulls.com, Inc. (Nampa, Idaho) and Pride Industrial, LLC (Cincinnati, Ohio) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan for infringement of United States Design Patent Nos. D553,944; D558,557; and D574,216. The design patents cover cabinet handles and pulls. Fig. 8 from the '944 patent and Fig. 1 from the '557 patent are shown below.
Naos Sues On Extendable Table Patent
On June 8, 2010, Italian design company Naos, SRL (Florence, Italy) filed a patent infringement action against Sunset International Trade, LLC, CSN Stores, LLC, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for infringing United States Patent No. 5,458,070, entitled "Extendable Table With Two Rotating Elements, For Use As A Piece Of Furniture." A copy of the complaint may be found by clicking here.
A figure from the '070 patent is shown below:
Wal-Mart's version of the table:
True Innovations Sues On Design Patent
On June 1, 2010, True Innovations, Inc. filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against Marco Group, Inc. (Missouri) and Zhejiang Qianglong Seating Co. (China) alleging infringement of United States Design Patent No. D494,791 entitled "Chair Arm Support" (Civil Action No. 10-cv-2499-EDL). A copy of the complaint may be found by clicking here.
The '791 patent is a good example of claiming just a portion of an item of furniture. The solid lines in the drawings define the scope of the claims. Here, the patentee True Innovations is claiming just the arm support. The support may appear on any chair and still infringe the '791 patent. A copy of the '791 patent is attached to the complaint and Fig. 1 is reproduced below:
The '791 patent is a good example of claiming just a portion of an item of furniture. The solid lines in the drawings define the scope of the claims. Here, the patentee True Innovations is claiming just the arm support. The support may appear on any chair and still infringe the '791 patent. A copy of the '791 patent is attached to the complaint and Fig. 1 is reproduced below:
Monday, June 14, 2010
Fabric Printing Company Loses Bid To Enforce Design Based On "Clip Art"
Fabric printing company L.A. Printex sued clothing retailer Aeropostale and its supplier for infringing Printex's copyright registration for a textile design entitled "Geometric" in the Central District of California. The registration include 13 distinct patterns. The allegedly infringed pattern consists of a series of identically-sized snowflakes arranged in a heart-shaped pattern. Printex's designer copies the design for the snowflakes from Adobe Photoshop 7.0's "clip art" collection.
In its summary judgment motion, Aeropostale argued: (1) the Adobe End User License Agreement prevented Printex from registering derivative works based on clip art; (2) Printex fraudulently misled the Copyright Office by failing to disclose the Adobe clip art; and (3) Printex's registration is for a group and Printex failed to offer evidence that it published the patterns as a "single unit" as the Copyright Act requires.
The court rejected the first two arguments, holding that the EULA only prohibited users from asserting rights in the software and because of that, Printex had not failed to disclose a fact that might have prevented the Copyright Office from issuing the registration. However, the court held that Printex failed to submit any evidence that it published the snowflake design independent of the other designs in the registration. Noting that the Copyright Office has not promulgated regulations allowing for group registrations of fabric patterns, the court held that Printex did not have a valid registration in the snowflake design alone.
The opinion underscores the need to evaluate the material for which protection is sought, and how to craft the appropriate protections for those materials. The full opinion may be found here.
In its summary judgment motion, Aeropostale argued: (1) the Adobe End User License Agreement prevented Printex from registering derivative works based on clip art; (2) Printex fraudulently misled the Copyright Office by failing to disclose the Adobe clip art; and (3) Printex's registration is for a group and Printex failed to offer evidence that it published the patterns as a "single unit" as the Copyright Act requires.
The court rejected the first two arguments, holding that the EULA only prohibited users from asserting rights in the software and because of that, Printex had not failed to disclose a fact that might have prevented the Copyright Office from issuing the registration. However, the court held that Printex failed to submit any evidence that it published the snowflake design independent of the other designs in the registration. Noting that the Copyright Office has not promulgated regulations allowing for group registrations of fabric patterns, the court held that Printex did not have a valid registration in the snowflake design alone.
The opinion underscores the need to evaluate the material for which protection is sought, and how to craft the appropriate protections for those materials. The full opinion may be found here.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Sleepy's Files Trademark Action Over Macy's Use Of "Mattress Professionals"
New York based Sleepy's LLC filed suit against department-store chain Macy's for infringing Sleepy's trademark "the mattress professionals." The case was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 10-cv-3982). In its complaint, Sleepy's seeks an injunction against Macy's use of the phrases "Ask Our Mattress Pros" and "Factory-Trained Mattress Professionals."
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Round Up of Recent Furniture Cases
Several new furniture IP cases were filed within the last month or so. Here is a summary:
1. Nood Fashions, LLC v. Nood Furniture and Design Ltd., 4:10-cv-49 (N.D. Ga.) - Plaintiff Nood Fashions, LLC brought suit against defendant Nood Furniture and Design Ltd. for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiff Nood Fashions manufactures and distributes carpet and flooring using the "NOOD" mark. Defendants Nood Furniture and Design Ltd. is a Canadian company is using the "NOOD" mark for and on its website - http://www.nooddesign.com/ - in connection with furniture and other home furnishings. Defendant is using a very similar logo:
2. On April 23, 2010, Jangsoo Industry Co., Ltd., a Korean company, and its exclusive U.S. distributor brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Jangsoo Furniture Land, Inc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal and state law (Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01225). Jangsoo Industry manufacturers and, through its distributor, sells heated electric mattresses and stone beds, mainly to the Korean community in and around Atlanta. Plaintiff is the owner of over a dozen marks involving the component JANGSOO in connection with beds. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was a former licensee that had been terminated but continues to use the JANGSOO marks. Plaintiff filed for a preliminary injunction along with its complaint. It appears that defendants have not responded.
3. On April 14, 2010, Herman Miller sued multiple defendants, including an unknown company in China, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-01608). In its complaint, Herman Miller alleges that defendants have engaged in trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition for the production and sale of "knockoff EAMES trademark in Lounge Chairs and Ottomans" and "knockoff EAMES Aluminum Group and Soft Pad" furniture. The federal trademark registration held by Herman Miller for one of the Eames chairs is below.
1. Nood Fashions, LLC v. Nood Furniture and Design Ltd., 4:10-cv-49 (N.D. Ga.) - Plaintiff Nood Fashions, LLC brought suit against defendant Nood Furniture and Design Ltd. for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiff Nood Fashions manufactures and distributes carpet and flooring using the "NOOD" mark. Defendants Nood Furniture and Design Ltd. is a Canadian company is using the "NOOD" mark for and on its website - http://www.nooddesign.com/ - in connection with furniture and other home furnishings. Defendant is using a very similar logo:
2. On April 23, 2010, Jangsoo Industry Co., Ltd., a Korean company, and its exclusive U.S. distributor brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Jangsoo Furniture Land, Inc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal and state law (Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01225). Jangsoo Industry manufacturers and, through its distributor, sells heated electric mattresses and stone beds, mainly to the Korean community in and around Atlanta. Plaintiff is the owner of over a dozen marks involving the component JANGSOO in connection with beds. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was a former licensee that had been terminated but continues to use the JANGSOO marks. Plaintiff filed for a preliminary injunction along with its complaint. It appears that defendants have not responded.
3. On April 14, 2010, Herman Miller sued multiple defendants, including an unknown company in China, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-01608). In its complaint, Herman Miller alleges that defendants have engaged in trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition for the production and sale of "knockoff EAMES trademark in Lounge Chairs and Ottomans" and "knockoff EAMES Aluminum Group and Soft Pad" furniture. The federal trademark registration held by Herman Miller for one of the Eames chairs is below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)