Acushnet, the maker of Titleist golf equipment, filed suit against Australia’s Golf Gods, accusing them of violating Titleist trademarks through Golf Gods’ sale of apparel bearing a “TITTIES” mark in the Titleist stylized script, “HOE V1” (instead of “PRO V1,” a Titleist golf ball), and a few other racy take-offs on Titleist marks. Titleist also asserts that golf balls sold by Golf Gods infringes the trade dress of Acushnet’s TITLEIST PRO V1 packaging.
Titleist asserts (and is almost certainly correct) that its marks are famous, and accuses Golf Gods of intentionally creating an “unwholesome and undesirable association” in consumers’ minds, thereby tarnishing the Titleist marks. Titleist asserts trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark dilution under both state and federal law. Judge Boal has the case.
Magistrate Judge Boal denied SiOnyx’ motion for evidentiary sanctions against Hamamatsu Photonics and Hamamatsu Corp.SiOnyx and Harvard filed suit in 2015, asserting correction of inventorship, patent infringement, and breach of contract. In discovery, Hamamatsu produced summary spreadsheets of damages information without providing the underlying invoices and purchase orders. By order of October 2017, the court ordered Hamamatsu to provide that information and some additional sales data. SiOnyx asserts that Hamamatsu failed to produce the information prior to the taking of depositions of Hamamatsu personnel and provided inaccurate and shifting information relating to damages, and sought both to preclude Hamamatsu from relying on the summary data and to have sales figures taken from annual reports be deemed established pursuant to Rule 37. Citing the strong presumption of allowing cases to be decided on the merits, Judge Boal determined that the defendants’ conduct was no so extreme as to warrant evidentiary sanctions (which were the only sanctions sought by SiOnyx). Judge Boal next addressed a dispute as to the interpretation of the October order, which modified certain requests for sales data to exclude data on unaccused products. Hamamatsu chose to interpret this to require production only of documents expressly mentioning an accused product. Judge Boal corrected them and ordered production of all sales documents that pertained to an accused product, but did not find them to be in contempt of the October order.
Since 2010, plaintiff Ronald Lackey has owned and run a company under the names “South Shore Roofing” and “South Shore Roofing and Siding.” He filed a business certificate for “South Shore Roofing & Siding” in 2011 in Cohasset. He also owns the websites www.southshoreroofing.com and www.southshore roofers.com. In March, 2016, he filed for trademark registration on “South Shore Roofing.” At or around the same time, the defendant changed its corporate name from CS MASS LOGISTICS, INC. to “South Shore Roofing, Inc.,” and it registered this name with the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Plaintiff’s application was placed on the Supplemental Register. Lackey alleges that he has lost business due to customer confusion regarding defendant’s business name, and asserts federal and state claims of trademark infringement, dilution (although no particular facts are pled to suggest that the mark is famous), violation of M.G.L. c. 93A, and violation of M.G. L. c. 110H § 13, which prohibits the unauthorized counterfeiting of a Massachusetts-registered trademark (although the complaint does not specifically allege a Massachusetts registration). The case is before Magistrate Judge Boal.