SURFING USA


A while back, the IPKat posted a story about Surfvivor v Survivor, a US trade mark case. Today, the IPKat received this note from Peter Deptula, owner of the SURFVIVOR mark:
I must say that the courts really failed me and my business and most importantly my family.

Something of intrest is the related goods factor, the courts feel that sunscreen is not related to sunscreen. In all I filed my lawsuit to protect my trademarks, and lost on summary judgement, and have to pay CBS's fees! We won 4 of the sleekcraft factors, CBS won 3. According to US trademark law 2 things of importance first, summary judgement is disfavored, second, if it is close or a tie the non moving party should prevail. (a jury would no doubt be able to distinguish that sunscreen is sunscreen).

All we wanted was a fair and just trial to show the facts as they really are. Example: Judge Rawlinson claims only 30% of my products have the Surfvivor trademark, when indeed it is at least 70% (its in my deposition and in the record. 30% of the goods I produce are for custom work for other companies. Any comments or anyone who can help me would be appreciated or if anyone would like to hear my story, please do not hesitate to contact me.
You can get in contact with Peter here or here
SURFING USA SURFING USA Reviewed by Anonymous on Thursday, June 16, 2005 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.