Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA853702 Filing date: 10/23/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 92065670 Party Plaintiff Eko Brands, LLC Correspondence Address DAVID A LOWE LOWE GRAHAM JONES PLLC 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98104 UNITED STATES Email: [email protected]Submission Other Motions/Papers Filer's Name David A Lowe Filer's email [email protected], [email protected], litdocket- [email protected]Signature /David A Lowe/ Date 10/23/2017 Attachments ESUP-6-0007P02 NOT.pdf(661838 bytes )
21
Embed
ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA853702 Filing date: 10/23/2017 IN …ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92065670-CAN-6.pdf · Eko also sells paper filters and cleaning tablets to be used
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA853702
Filing date: 10/23/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Proceeding 92065670
Party PlaintiffEko Brands, LLC
CorrespondenceAddress
DAVID A LOWELOWE GRAHAM JONES PLLC701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4800SEATTLE, WA 98104UNITED STATESEmail: [email protected]
brewing products in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive
in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and Washington common law.
COUNT II: FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
40. Eko re-alleges the preceding paragraphs.
41. Defendants have engaged in false designation of origin and unfair competition by
knowingly and willfully creating an affiliation or connection between them and Eko in order to
confuse and mislead the public as to the source of the related products and services in violation
of 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
COUNT III: CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATION
42. Eko re-alleges the preceding paragraphs.
43. Defendants have intentionally confused and misled the public in Washington
State and throughout the country. Defendants’ actions constitute unfair methods of competition
and unfair deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of its trade or business. Defendants’
actions have affected and continue to affect the public interest in Washington State as well as in
other parts of the country. Defendants have demonstrated its propensity for repetition of the
wrongful actions. As a direct and causal result of Defendants’ unfair business practices and
unfair and deceptive acts, Eko has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
44. Defendants’ actions are in violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection
Act, R.C.W. § 19.86.020.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Eko requests the following alternative and cumulative relief:
1. Preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants and all officers, agents, affiliates, employees, representatives, and all persons in active concert or participation with them in any way, from use of the ECO-FILL, ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and ECO-FLOW marks, or any other marks confusingly similar thereto, as a service mark, trademark, trade name, domain name or part thereof alone or in combination with other words, symbols, styles,
Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 9 of 10
titles or marks in connection with coffee products, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and other applicable law.
2. An order that Defendants deliver up for destruction all products, printed material, stationery, business forms, signs, advertisements, brochures, promotional material, manuals, pamphlets, labels, packages, containers, and all other materials bearing the ECO-FILL, ECO-FILL DELUXE 2.0, ECO CARAFE and ECO-FLOW marks, or any derivative, colorable imitation, or confusingly similar marks, together with all means for making or reproducing the same, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118 and other applicable law.
3. An order requiring Defendants to file with this Court and serve on Eko within thirty days of service of this order a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the terms of the ordered relief.
4. An award of damages sufficient to compensate Eko for all injury sustained as a result of Defendants’ wrongful trademark infringement, including wrongful profits of Defendants, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and other applicable law.
5. Exemplary damages and all of Eko’s litigation expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and other applicable law.
6. An assessment of prejudgment interest and costs.
7. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED June 9, 2017
s/David A. Lowe, WSBA No. 24,453 [email protected] LOWE GRAHAM JONESPLLC
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98104 T: 206.381.3300 F: 206.381.3301 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 8
CLASS 11: Reusable filter, not of paper, for use in electric brewing machines for beverage
FIRST USE 9-7-2011; IN COMMERCE 9-7-2011
The mark consists of the wording "EKOBREW" in stylized font wherein the letters are all
lower case with the lines forming the letter "K" are elongated.
SER. NO. 87-019,462, FILED 04-29-2016
RUDY RENWIC SINGLETON, EXAMINING ATTORNEY
Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT C
Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT D
Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:17-cv-00894 Document 1-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 8 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
EKO BRANDS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ
ENTERPRISES INC. et al.,
Defendants.
C17-894 TSZ
MINUTE ORDER
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
(1) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, docket no. 14, is DENIED. Plaintiff’s claims in this action for trademark infringement, Lanham Act and
Consumer Protection Act violations do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence
as the patent infringement claims in Eko Brand v. ARM, et al., Cause No. 15-522RSL
(“Prior Litigation”). As a result, plaintiff’s claims were not compulsory counterclaims in the Prior Litigation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a). The Court also concludes that plaintiff’s complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face
under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of
record.
Dated this 6th day of October, 2017.
William M. McCool
Clerk
s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk
Case 2:17-cv-00894-TSZ Document 24 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 1