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.

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.

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.

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.

After Victoria’s Secret discovered that a Texas Company was attempting to register the mark “VS Secrets of Romance” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it opened an investigation and discovered that the company was selling a line of personal care products with a similar trademark and trade name. Victoria Secret filed a suit against VS Secrets of Romance LLC on April 1 in Eastern District of Texas. Causes of action filed against the defendants include counterfeiting and trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, trade name infringement and common law infringement. Although the defendant’s attempt to register the name was denied due to the similarities with Victoria’s Secrete’s name and trademark, the defendant continued to use the protected names on its web site and products. The plaintiff claims it sent the company a crease and desist letter in June 2009.  The effort was temprarilty effective as the defendant’s Web site was inaccessible as “under construction.” However, in February 2010, Victoria’s Secret discovered that the Romance Web site was active again and marketing products that infringed upon the trademark rights of Victoria’s Secret.

The plaintiff is asking the court to permanently enjoin and restrain the defendant from using its trademark or names, for an award of all profits gained, an award of punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs.

AMI Entertainment  Network Inc. has filed a trademark infringement law suit against A&E Television Networks LLC. alleging that A&E has been using AMI’s trademarked Photo Hunt in connection with the network’s online video game based on “The Sopranos,” the hit HBO series from 1999 to 2007.  The suit furthers charges that the cable TV network has knowingly infringed AMI’s trademark on Photo Hunt and that the resulting public confusion between the two companies has caused great ham to AMI’s reputation. The video game company, AMI, has said that prior to filing the law suit it tried and failed to convince A&E to drop the trademark from its website. The A&E video game, called “The Sopranos Photo Hunt,” is available on A&E’s website for free play. Attorneys for AMI has asked the court to force A&E from using the Photo Hunt mark and to pay AMI’s attorney fees and litigation costs. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, AMI has employed the Photo Hunt mark for its coin-operated touchscreen video games since 1997.