Worldcare Limited Corp. v. NOW Health International (Holdings) Ltd. (17-cv-11475).

WorldCare Limited Corp. sued NOW Health International (Holdings) Ltd. for breaching a trademark license and co-existence agreement and for trademark infringement. WorldCare and NOW had previously had a dispute over the use of the “WorldCare” name.  The parties resolved the dispute by entering into an agreement by which NOW was granted the right to use the mark to sell health insurance, but was prohibited form offering “second opinion” medical advice services in connection with its “WorldCare” policies, as that was the nature of WorldCare’s business. Jurisdiction and venue over NOW, a Bermuda company with no physical presence in the United States, is based on a clause of the 2013 agreement.

Algorithms for Success v. Fritz (17-cv-11476).

Algorithms for Success, Inc. (“AFS”) yesterday sued former employee Michael Fritz for breach of contract, breach of duty of loyalty, misappropriation of legally protected information, violation of M.G.L. 93A, inevitable disclosure, breach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and unfair competition.  AFS is a business and career coaching and event management company for whom Fritz was a vice president with access to AFS’ customers and confidential information.  Fritz signed non-compete, non-solicitation, non-disclosure and assignment agreements with AFS.  AFS’ allegations are that a forensic analysis of Fritz’s work computer revealed that he accessed thousands of confidential records and attached external storage devices such as thumb drives and external hard drives to the computer in the days immediately before his last day of work.  AFS seeks the return of its confidential and proprietary information, forensic access to Fritz’s personal computers and other devices, temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing further use or dissemination of AFS’ confidential and proprietary information and preventing Fritz from working for any employer who performs services for AFS customers with whom he worked or had access to confidential information, and compensatory and punitive dames and attorneys’ fees.

Chatham v. Canterbury Ventures LLC (17-cv-11473).

Matthew Chatham sued building company Canterbury Ventures, its owner Daniel Lewis, and real estate agent Patricia Bergevine for infringing his copyright in a house design. Mr. Chatham developed a set of custom plans for the design of a house, and has since registered his “architectural work” with the U.S. Copyright Office. He gave Canterbury permission to use the custom plans for the sole purpose of building the house for him on a lot that Canterbury was to purchase.  Canterbury did not complete the house by the contracted closing date, and seven months later still had not completed the house.  Mr. Chatham and his wife had earlier sued for breach of contract in state court.  He filed this copyright case after learning that Canterbury was showing the partially-constructed house through defendant Bergevine, a real estate agent.  The Chathams also obtained a lis pendens order, which in Massachusetts is recorded at the registry of deeds and puts prospective buyers on notice of the lawsuit, effectively clouding title on the real estate.  Chatham seeks an order preventing sale of the house, that the house be placed in a constructive trust, and monetary damages and attorneys’ fees.  (Full disclosure – Mr. Chatham is represented by Nathan Harris and John Anastasi of my firm, Lando & Anastasi LLP).

Capsule Collective, LLC v. Tilt Lacrosse, LLC (17-cv-11465).

Capsule Collective filed suit against Tilt Lacrosse, alleging willful infringement of the “TILT” trademark and various stylized “TILT” marks and seeking cancellation of defendant’s Registration No. 4,818,851 for the “TILT” mark on t-shirts, hats, and other clothing. Capsule Collective claims to have first used the mark in commerce on clothing, hats, push scooters, and scooter accessories before Tilt Lacrosse’s first use in commerce.  Additionally, Capsule Collective claims trademark and trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, passing off, violation of the Lanham Act and violation of M.G.L. 93A.  It further seeks cancellation of Defendant’s “TILT” registration.

The Life Is Good Company v. Teespring, Inc. (17-cv-11420).

The Life Is Good Company filed another suit against a company allowing users to design and sell t-shirts and the like, this time going after the company behind www.teespring.com. The allegations are virtually identical to the complaint mentioned  yesterday against Viral Style.

The Life Is Good Company v. Viral Style LLC (17-cv-11413).

The Life Is Good Company sued Florida-based Viral Style LLC for trademark infringement, unfair competition, counterfeiting, and passing off. Viral Style operates www.viralstyle.com, which allowing users to design and sell their own t-shirts, hats, mugs and the like. Life Is Good alleges that Viral Style’s users have infringed it incontestable registration to “LIFE IS GOOD” and that Viral Style itself has infringed the mark by making the shirts designed by its users.   Life Is Good further contests that Viral Style’s “Intellectual Property Complaint Policy” does not meet the safe harbor requirements of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DCMA”) because it provides no method for screening a design to ensure it does not infringe another’s intellectual property rights and does not bar repeat offenders from the site, and in any event that the DCMA safe harbor provisions apply only to copyright, and not to trademark claims.

Boston Heart Diagnostics Corp.

Framingham, Massachusetts’ Boston Heart Diagnostics Corp. filed separate patent infringement lawsuits, one against GeneAlign, LLC (17-cv-11412) and the other against Genelex Corp. (17-cv-11416). Both suits allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,455,194, titled “Diagnostic Methods” and directed to  methods for detecting the susceptibility of an individual to statin-induced myopathy, and the plaintiff alleges itself to be the exclusive licensee with the “first right” to sue for infringement.  Plaintiff alleges direct and induced infringement.