Home Depot Inc. is using Oakleaf Waste Managment LLC in Georgia for trademark infringement and false advertising.  According to the suit, Atlanta-based Home Depot in October 2006 inked a deal with East Oakleaf where the waste company would offer Home Depot’s customers dumpster rentals. Under the Home Depot Dumpsters Rentals Program, customers could contact Oakleaf through a number Home Depot approved or through an approved Home Depot website. In December 2009, Home Depot ended the arrangement with Oakleaf and finished winding down the program in April 2010. But even though Oakleaf is no longer a contractor for Home Depot, the suit alleges the company is continuing to use, without permission, Home Depot’s name, famous orange logo and other trademarks to advertise, promote and sell Oakleaf’s own dumpster business.

Home Depot is seeking a permanent injunction and monteary damages, including profits Oakleaf made by improperly using Home Depot trademark.

Mattel Inc., the largest toymaker in the world, was sued for trademark infringement by an educational-technology company, Quia Corp. of San Mateo, California.  Quia accused Mattel and its Fisher-Price unit of infringing its “IXL” trademark.  The suit stems from advertisements by Mattel and Fisher-Price for a “multi-tech, six-in-one smart device fro preschoolers” that is marked as “iXL.’ Quia said it began using the term “IXL” for one of its e-learning web-based products in 2007, and that its promoted through several web sites. The program related to the “IXL” product now has more than 30,000 family memberships and 1,800 school membership in the U.S.  Quia claims Mattel’s use of “iXL” will be confused by their “IXL” and has objected to Mattel’s attempts to register “iXL” as a trademark.

In additional to tasking the court to bar Mattel and Fisher-Price’s use of “iXL”, Quia asked the court for an award to money damages and lost profits, attorney fees and litigation costs.

Software developer SoftView launched a suit against Apple and iPhone and AT&T on Monday, claiming the two are infringing on its patent covering the display of Web pages on mobile devices. SoftView makes a product of the same name, which provides graphic viewers and Web browsers for PDAs, cellphones, smartphones, and other small-screen devices. The SoftView website says the company has been developing its product since 1982 and prominently displays its three patent numbers on its home page. SoftView’s patent covers the scalable display of Internet content on mobile devices.  The product is described as “mobile devices enabled to support resolution-independent scalable display of Internet (Web) content to allow web pages to be scaled (zoomed) and planned for better viewing on smaller screen sizes.  The patent was filed in 2005 and issued in 2008.

Considering this case, Apple is  wrestling with law suit against Nokia, EMG Technology, HTC and Kodak.

A long-time hair salon is being told to change their names by one of the best known stores in the world, Saks Fifth Avenue. Salon Fifth Avenue, located in Seattle, Washington, has been around for 35 years.  It originally located in fifth avenue in Olympia and but moved 11 years ago and did not change its name. Saks is complaining the name is intentional trademark infringement. The owner of the salon, Elaine McConkey, expressed her frustration by calling Saks’s demands “ridiculous” and asking why a big company like Saks has to pick on such a small business like her salon. Saks apparently hired a private investigator to take pictures of the street sign and compared it to its log. Saks has sent a letter to the salon alleging intentional trademark infringement and gave the salon until May 18 to change the name. They have also demanded that all business cards and shopping bags belonging to the salon destroyed.

Saks Fifth Avenue is based in New York and has no stores in Washington.

The state of Texas has temporarily halted a request to register a trademark of “The Alamo.” The Daughters of the Republic of Texas, a library inside the complex, is seeking trademark rights to create a line of official Alamo merchandise. The group has cared for the state-owned Alamo since 1905. A 30-day period to oppose the trademark ended this week, but on Wednesday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted the state’s request for a 90-day extension.  The Daughters would have received  a certificate of registration otherwise, allowing them to use the name in selling the merchandise. The state’s attorney stated that no one is accusing the Daughters of any wrongdoing, but that the state just wants more time to discuss the issue with them.

Built in 1724, the Alamo was first named Misión San Antonio de Valero and was originally intended to serve as a home to missionaries and their converts in this region. Today, this site is commemorated for the immense role it played in the Texas Revolution, and was renamed the Alamo by the Spanish soldiers in memory of their hometown in Coahuila. Present-day visitors can relive the legendary past of the Alamo on the famous Battlefield Tour, which guides you through landmarks like the Musquiz House, the San Fernando Church, the Maverick House and the funeral pyres on Commerce Street.

A federal appeal court in New York has sided with comedian Jerry Seinfeld’s wife in her trademark dispute with another cookbook author. Missy Chase Lapine had claimed Jessica Seinfeld copied her secrets on how to get children to eat vegetables.  The appeals court said today that “stockpiling vegetables purees for cover use in children’s food an idea that cannot be copyrighted.” Both books were published in 2007.  Seinfeld’s is called “Deceptive Delicious” and Lapine’s is titled “The Sneaky Chef.”

Miami-based Marcel Fashion Group Inc., and the “GET LUCKY” line of apparel won a $300,000 verdict against New York based Liz Claiborne Inc. and its subsidiary, Los Angeles based Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. following a federal trademark infringement law suit in New York. The jury in the case found that Liz Claiborne and Lucky Brand sold garments that infringed the “GET LUCKY” trademark owned by Marcel Fasion.  The Jury also found that the companies’ infringement amounted to unfair competition under federal law. Lucky Brand originally sued Marcel Fashion and its licensee Ally Apparel for trademark infringement in 2005, but evidence showed that Marcel Fashion had registered and used the trademark “GET LUCKY” years before Lucky Brand was even formed. Last year, the court sanctioned Lucky Brand for its repeated discovery violations and awarded partial summary judgment on some of Marcel’s trademark counterclaims and breach of a 2003 settlement agreement with Marcel Fashion.

Cosmetics Company Clinique Laboratories is suing a medical clinic company in Singapore for trademark infringement. Clinique Laboratories, LLC., based on New York, is one of the world’s leading manufacturers and marketers of prestige skin care, makeup hair and fragrance products. Clinique was first launched in 1968 with skin care and makeup products that are all Allergy Tested & 100% Fragrance Free. Clinique claims that Singaporean company, Clinique Suisse, infringes on its trademark by using its brand name which can mislead consumers into thinking its associated with Clinique. Clinique says not only Clinique Suisse sell similar products, but its brand name also uses a similar design to Clinique.  Clinique’s lawyers said in court that additional word “suisse” merely suggests a connection to Switzerland and does not in any way distinguish the clinic as a separate brand name. They argued that the word “suisse” merely suggests, misleadingly, that the Clinique Suisse products and services are an extension of Clinique’s line of products and services with a Swiss element.

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would hear Costco Wholesale Corp’s appeal in a copyright infringement dispute with Swatch Group over imported Swiss-made Watches.  The high court is expected to  hear arguments in the case, which pits the top U.S. warehouse club operator against the world’s largest watchmaker, during its upcoming term that begins in October. Omega, a Swatch Group unit, manufactures watches in Switzerland and sells them globally through a network of authorized distributors and retailers. Costco obtained watches bearing the copyrighted design from the so-called “grey market” through series of transactions. Omega first sold the watches to authorized distributors overseas.  Unidentified third parties bought the watches and sold them to a New York company, which in turn sold them to Costco.  Although Omega approved the initial foreign sale,  it did not authorize importing the watches into the U.S. or the sales by Costco.

The Federal judge ruled for Coscto but the U.S. Appeal court disagreed and held that the first-sale doctrine, preventing infringements,  did not apply to imported goods manufactured abroad. A number of business groups and companies, such as eBay Inc., filed briefs with the court in support of Costco.

David Ortiz was sued for trademark infringement by a company owned by hip-hop entrepreneur Jay-Z.  Jay-Z accused Ortiz of infringing the “40/40″ trademark for a series of sport-themed bars owned by Jay-Z’s company, The Name LLC.  Ortiz who was a frequent guest  at the New York “40/40″ club, opened a “Forty Forty” club in the Dominican Republic, according to the complaint filed April 15 in Federal Court in Manhattan. The Name also objects to the web site Ortiz uses to promote his club, www.fortyforty.net.  Ortiz and his partners in the Dominican club “are trying to reap what they have not sown,” according to the court papers. According to the Complaint, the unauthorized use of the 40/40 marks for the Dominican club has deceived the public into believing a connection with the U.S. based chain. In addition to seeking monetary damages in excess of $5 million, the Name asked the court to bar use of its trademark name, and transfer of the offending domain name. Additionally, the company seeks an award of attorney fees and litigation costs.