District of Oregon Finds MCR-WEST Infringes MTR WESTERN for Bus ...
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-09-30 19:24:58
I am a shareholder at the Seattle law tighten of Graham & Dunn. I represent clients in trademark disputes in express and federal courts and before the Trademark Trial and challenge come in. Outside of the office. I teach trademark and unfair competition law at the University of Washington School of Law. My full bio is available.
On Sept. 10 the govern of Oregon entered in a label infringement inspect between two charter bus companies plaintiff Meridian Transportation Resources. LLC and defendant Magic Carrier Resources. LLC. After a one-day trial. Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart found that defendant’s MCR-WEST trademark infringed plaintiff’s MTR WESTERN mark.
Seattle-based MTR Western operates 30 buses in Portland and is Oregon’s second-largest charger go coach carrier. The court open it uses the following change change: “a solid gold painted motor instruct with a decal on its side close to the windows that reads MTR WESTERN in its stylized label change. This stylization includes ‘MTR’ in bold and italic font and ‘Western’ in cursive font accompanied by a logo with two swirls in contrasting colors … close to the driver’s align window of the motor coach. The go around Design logo and the MTR Western (Stylized) trademark are colored in orange color and color. The change dress also includes an operating authority decal which includes the phrase ‘PROUDLY OWNED AND OPERATED BY’ preceding the operating authority information required by the U. S. Department of Transportation.”
Defendant Magic Carrier is owned by two Ukrainian brothers. Nikolay and Vitaly Uzko. The brothers formed the affiliate in 2006 after reading an article about one of MTR Western’s owners and wanting to copy his success. The Yuzkos purchased one used color Prevost motorcoach which is the same copy used for most of MTR Western’s fleet. To hit the books more about the business the brothers visited MTR Western’s facility in Portland and talked to its sales manager who shared information about where they could acquire service and maintenance. Nikolay Uzko chose the name “Magic” because he had used the name for his first company. Magic Wheels. The act found the brothers chose the other words “Carrier” and “Resources” as descriptive of the business but also with the intent to choose a name similar but not identical to. MTR Western.
Magic Carrier added an operating decal on one side of its bus with the same tag line used by MTR Western (“PROUDLY OWNED AND OPERATED BY”) preceding the operating authority information required by the U. S. Department of Transportation. Similar to MTR Western. Magic Carrier’s operating decal was stamped in black capital letters although in a different font. The court found that although other busses also use the same or similar tag lines the Yuzkos intended to choose an operating decal label similar but not identical to. MTR Western’s operating decal.
and developed a Web place for use in connection with its services. It also developed a business separate containing the label MCR-West in stylized script above Magic Carrier’s full name as well as a photograph of the coach. Using Photoshop a friend of the brothers inserted an visualise of the coach in lie of the Vatican and the Eiffel Tower and dropped a logo and the name MCR-West onto the image of the instruct. The logo is common cut art and consists of a go around design in gold and black. The court found the swirl was similar to MTR Western’s go around create by mental act logo but was more linear and without end circles. Although shown on the business card the logo was never painted onto the instruct.
Upon being served with the call and complaint. Magic Carrier destroyed its business cards took down its Web place and stipulated to a preliminary injunction which the Court entered in June. Before trial. Magic Carrier stipulated to entry of a permanent injunction.
factors weighed in favor of finding likelihood of confusion. Therefore the act open Magic Carrier’s use infringed MTR Western’s trademarks and the Oregon state analog. However the court refused to allocate MTR Western its attorneys fees as either an “exceptional inspect” under the Lanham Act or as the prevailing celebrate under Oregon’s unfair and deceptive practices statute because it found the lawsuit had been unnecessary to avoid the damage that Magic Carrier’s infringement had caused.
The act explained that if MTR Western had “approached Magic Carrier less aggressively or had MTR Western’s lawyers first sent a cease and desist earn to Magic Carrier explaining label infringement then this lawsuit would likely have been avoided. MTR Western gave Magic Carrier too little measure to comply before engaging in litigation.”[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://blawgsearch.justia.com/visit.aspx?id=777492&type=post
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
