Intellectual Property Litigation

Overview

Headquartered in Seattle, a center for technological and biomedical innovation, Karr Tuttle Campbell has taken ample advantage of our opportunity to provide clients with a full array of services relating to intellectual property through our copyright, trademark, patent, licensing and related business practices.

Ideally, business and intellectual property disputes can be resolved amicably through skillful negotiation.  However, in some cases more aggressive means become necessary.  Our litigation department lawyers are experienced at providing dispute resolution services related to the broad spectrum of intellectual property issues.  And Karr Tuttle Campbell attorneys will not hesitate to take your case to court when that is required to protect your interests and meet your objectives. Through litigation we are able to address all manner of commercial and intellectual property matters, including contract differences, employment disagreements, licensing challenges, instances of patent, trademark or copyright infringement, and trade secret theft.

Specific examples of our attorneys’  intellectual property litigation experience

• Lead counsel in a declaratory judgment action asserting that our client did not infringe on defendants’ claimed trade dress. Our adversary counterclaimed, alleging trade dress infringement, reverse palming off, contract interference, and Consumer Protection Act violation.  We supervised and directed multiple lawyers in depositions in Madison, WI; Sydney, Australia; Hong Kong; Cleveland, OH; Salt Lake City, UT; Phoenix, AZ; and Seattle, WA.  Won on motion for summary judgment; all counterclaims dismissed.

• Representation of an American supermarket chain in litigation with the largest supermarket chain in British Columbia over the rights within the United States to use the tradename and trademark “Sav-On Foods.”

• Lead trial counsel for software firm.  Successfully pursued claims for breach  of a settlement agreement and violation of trade secrets for computer software.

• Representation of the trustee in the bankruptcy of a department store chain regarding a trademark license agreement pertaining to Frango candies.

• Representation of Definitive Audio, Inc., a high-end retailer of audio and video equipment, in a state court action against a local company that was employing a similar name and almost identical advertisements to promote its auto stereo business.
• Representation of the Russian distillery that produced Stolichnaya Vodka in a federal court dispute with Pepsico over the North American distribution and trademark rights to Stolichnaya Cristall Vodka.
• In District Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, lead trial counsel in trade secret litigation related to online subscription services.  Successfully defended numerous preliminary injunction motions for false designation, copyright infringement, and unfair business practices.
• Representation of a major software company, in a dispute with a British public company with a nearly identical name, which without authorization used the client’s name, trade dress, and even its copyrighted advertisements in promoting its European distribution of software acquired from the client.  The dispute, which revolved in part around the validity and terms of an alleged exclusive distributorship, resulted in litigation in the courts of Great Britain.
• In the Eastern District of North Carolina, successfully defended client in trade dress litigation.
• Representation of a manufacturer and distributor of industrial heating equipment, in asserting trademark infringement claims against a California business that operated under the same name and used our client’s logo.  The principal issue in the dispute was whether a particular California corporation, to whom our client had given permission to use its trademark, had the right to transfer that right in connection with the liquidation and sale of its business.
• Representation of a local retailer of bedding, in successfully convincing a large national distributor/retailer of specialty mattresses and associated products to discontinue promotions in which a phrase incorporating terms similar to our client’s trade name were a prominent part.
• Representation of a national chain, Vision Center, in trademark litigation, which resulted in convincing the court that there was no likelihood of confusion with a local optometrist whose name was very similar to the principal name of the vision center.
• In Superior Court of the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, successfully pursued breach of employee agreement, Uniform Trade Secrets Act violations, and claims of intentional interference with business relations, conversion, trespass, promissory notes and breach of contractor agreement.