Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Seattle Trademark Lawyer
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: Seattle Trademark LawyerCourt Imposes Injunction Against Producers of "Cake Boss" TV Show
By Michael Atkins
Western District enjoins use of “Cake Boss” for TV Show
In Masters Software, Inc. v. Discovery Communications, Inc., a software company with a trademark registration for CAKE BOSS filed suit in the Western District against the producers of the popular television show of the same name. (Previous STL post here.)
On July 16, Western District Judge Richard Jones imposed a preliminary injunction against the producers of the TV show. Among other things, the court found much actual confusion: “Confusion between these marks is not limited to casual fans. People in the baking business have assumed that [plaintiff] CakeBoss is related to [defendant] Cake Boss, as evidenced by Masters’ experiences at trade shows. Discovery and Mr. [Bartolo ‘Buddy’] Valastro [star of the show] point out that they receive many more communications than Masters from people who do not appear to be confused, but this is to be expected. Most people are unaware of CakeBoss, including most people who are fans of Cake Boss. Among those that are aware of have encountered both marks, however, there is substantial evidence of actual confusion.”
The court also found that the defendants’ intent weighed in plaintiff’s favor. “Discovery attempts to paint its intent as innocent, denying that it was aware of CakeBoss when it named Cake Boss. The court accepts that Discovery was unaware of CakeBoss at that time, but this is a far cry from evidence of innocent intent. As noted, it would have only taken a few moments on the internet for Discovery to discover that the name it was considering for its new show (and a multi-million dollar investment) was in use by Masters. If it did not know about CakeBoss, it should have.”
Based on these findings, the court found that Masters was likely to prevail on its infringement claim and that irreparable harm was presumed. Therefore, it found that Masters was entitled to a preliminary injunction.
And it’s something of a doozie.
“The court orders that, pending trial in this matter, Defendants … shall cease using the name ‘Cake Boss’ to identify the television program currently entitled Cake Boss, and in connection with the sales of merchandise related to that television program.
“With respect to the sales of related merchandise (except for DVDs of the television program), this injunction shall take effect immediately upon Masters’ posting of bond. Defendants are permitted, however, to sell any pre-existing inventory of such products.
“With respect to the television program itself, the injunction shall take effect after Masters posts bond and after Defendants complete all scheduled first-run airings of the third season of Cake Boss. Within one month following the final first-run airing of the third season, Defendants may not use the name ‘Cake Boss’ in connection with either repeat showings of any episode of any season of the television program or with any episodes in future seasons.”
The court set the bond at $10,000.
The case cite is Masters Software, Inc. v. Discovery Communications, Inc., No. 10-405 (W.D. Wash. July 16, 2010) (Jones, J.).
Full post as published by Seattle Trademark Lawyer on July 20, 2010 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Florida Cement and Concrete Producers Face Price-Fixing Class Action
Florida Cement and Concrete Producers Face Price-Fixing Class Action
Lipitor
Review of Studies Show No Significant Benefit in Women
Tarceva
Safety Data Show Association with Liver Failure and Death
Major Egg Producers
Class Action Filed over Alleged Price Fixing
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation

Cake Boss Fans from Pittsburgh flocking to Hoboken
Court Issues Injunction Against FEC in SpeechNow.org Case







