Azernews.Az

By Bloomberg

Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd. said Henrik Fisker’s “Thunderbolt” prototype for a $400,000 GT coupe is an unauthorized copy of its iconic sports cars featured in James Bond movies for 50 years.

Fisker, a former Aston Martin design director and co- founder of the failed maker of electric cars that bore his name, unveiled the prototype at an auto show in Florida this month. The V12 coupe is only available by special order through a Los Angeles-based Aston Martin dealer.

The prototype features minor variations of Aston Martin’s trademarked design features, including the wings logo and side vents, the British carmaker said in a complaint filed March 27 in Los Angeles federal court. Fisker’s purported plan to sell a production version that doesn’t include some of those features is a classic “bait-and-switch” scheme, the carmaker said.

“Fisker’s bad-faith intent to free-ride off the tremendous goodwill associated with the famous Aston Martin mark, wings logo, side vent mark, and Vanquish mark could not be more transparent,” Aston Martin said.

Representatives of Galpin Aston Martin, where the Thunderbolt can ordered, didn’t immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment on the lawsuit. A call to Fisker’s HF Design LLC wasn’t immediately returned.

The case is Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd. v. Fisker, 15- cv-02247, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).

‘Empire’ Producers Seek Declaration Name Doesn’t Infringe Marks

Twenty-First Century Fox Inc.’s Twentieth Century Fox Television unit filed a trademark suit against a San Francisco- based distributor of hip-hop music.

The suit, filed in Los Angeles federal court, is related to the television series “Empire,” which began running in January. The TV production company is seeking a court declaration that its use of “Empire” doesn’t infringe intellectual property rights belonging to Empire Distribution Inc.

According to court papers, the music distributor sent the television company a cease-and-desist letter Feb. 16. Claiming that the use of “Empire” as a title tarnished the marks belonging to the distribution company. During a subsequent phone call, counsel for the distribution company demanded $8 million to resolve the dispute, the television company said.

A second demand letter suggested that Fox could pay $5 million and feature artists the hip-hop company represents as “regular guest stars” on the program, as an alternative to paying $8 million, or cease use of the term, Fox said in its pleadings.

Fox argued in its pleadings that “Empire” is a common word in trademarks, including in the entertainment field.

Empire Distribution didn’t respond immediately to an e- mailed request for comment.

The case is Twentieth Century Fox Television v. Empire Distribution Inc., 15-cv-02158, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).

Stolichnaya Belongs to Russia, Dutch Court Tells Vodka Tycoon

Russia won back the rights to the Stolichnaya and Moskovskaya vodka brands after fighting businessman Yuri Shefler in Dutch courts for more than a decade.

The two trademarks belong to Russia, the Rotterdam district court ruled March 25. The decision forces Shefler’s Dutch company Spirits International to hand over the trademark rights to the country or pay a penalty of 100,000 euros ($109,700) and face an additional daily fine of 50,000 euros, the court said.

The ruling, which can be appealed, will force Shefler’s company to stop the sale of Stolichnaya and Moskovskaya vodka in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

The decision is “not correct in light of the facts,” SPI Group, the owner of Spirits International, said in an e-mailed statement.

The case is C/10/442671 / HA ZA 14-97.

For more trademark news, click here.

Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage

Philips’ Trade Secret Case Defeated by Absence of Federal Claim

Royal Dutch Philips NV’s attempt to add a claim under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to a trade secrets case against a Chinese company was rejected by a federal court in San Jose, California.

The suit, filed by the Dutch electronics company in June 2014, is related to the alleged theft of trade secrets for high- energy LED lighting products. According to court papers, an employee at Philips’ Lumileds unit copied “several thousand files” from the company’s secure network and took them with him to China, where he joined Elec-Tech International Co.

Philips claimed that six months after the ex-employee joined Elec-Tech, the Chinese company announced two new high- energy LED products, an amount of time Philips said was “unprecedented” in the lighting industry.

The Dutch company sued, alleging multiple trade secret violations, and lodging a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984, a criminal statute. Congress added a civil provision to the law in 1994.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman said that the CFAA didn’t apply in this case because it covered unauthorized access to a computer system. Because the ex-employee downloaded the files while still at the Philips unit, his access wasn’t unauthorized, she said.

She said the other claims made by Philips come under California state law and, without a federal claim, the case couldn’t go forward. Without the CFAA claim, she said, the dispute didn’t have a federal cause of action, and dismissed the suit.

The case is Koninklijke Philips NV v. Elec-Tech International Co, 14-cv-02737, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).