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.You can get in contact with Peter here or here
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.