It’s over. A New Jersey federal judge has thrown out a vape company’s trademark suit alleging Duracell US Operations Inc. infringed on its “Optimum” brand name trademark.
What A Smoke owns federal “Optimum” trademarks covering e-cigarette batteries and other products such as atomizers, tanks, and refill cartridges.
The judge stated there was “no evidence” of any “potential or actual confusion” between the two products, according to Law360.
What A Smoke filed suit asking for Duracell’s applications to register two federal “Optimum” trademarks to be rejected based on likely confusion with What A Smoke’s trademarks.
Doughnut chain Dunkin’ sued an e-cigarette maker in New York federal court on Friday, claiming its “Vapin’ Donuts” products violate the chain’s trademark rights.
The lawsuit said Singh Handicraft Corp uses branding that is “nearly identical” to Dunkin’s on disposable vaporizers shaped like an iced coffee cup and a glazed doughnut, with a logo in the same “distinctive orange and pink color scheme and rounded font,” Reuters reports.
Massachusetts-based Dunkin’ also said that Singh sells the vaporizers in identical flavors to some of the chain’s drinks, including White Mocha and Iced Cappuccino. It accused Farmingdale, New York-based Singh of intentionally associating its products with Dunkin’ in a way that is likely to cause consumer confusion.
Representatives for Dunkin’ and Singh did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit.
The complaint said that Singh’s products are sold through several online and brick-and-mortar vaping outlets. It said buyers of the e-cigarettes have “expressed that the only reason they purchased Defendants’ products is out of an affection for Dunkin’,” citing internet comments.
Dunkin’ also accused Singh of targeting underaged buyers and said that such “morally reprehensible and illegal conduct” hurts the chain’s reputation.
Dunkin’ asked the court for an order to stop Singh’s alleged trademark infringement and an unspecified amount of money damages.
Singh applied for a federal trademark covering “Vapin’ Donuts” in March. Its application is still pending.
JUUL Labs, Inc filed a suit against defendant Reeha LLC in the District of Connecticut alleging trademark infringement and unfair trading practices on their vaping products for purportedly selling counterfeit JUUL products, according to lawstreetmedia.
The complaint, filed Dec. 15, states that “wrongdoers have counterfeited JUUL products by illegally manufacturing, selling and distributing fake, copied, and non-genuine versions of JUUL products and related packaging bearing JUUL trademarks.”
Allegedly the defendant did not have JUUL’s “authorization to produce, manufacture, distribute, market, offer for sale, and/or sell merchandise bearing the JUUL marks.” The plaintiff also claims that the defendant hurt the JUUL brand by selling lower quality products to unsuspecting customers who believed these to be true JUUL products.
Reeha allegedly used the trademarked words “JUULpods” in some of their products as well as the plaintiff’s company name “JUUL.”
The Juul contends that Reeha sold “unlawful Grey Market Goods,” which are only meant to be sold in foreign markets because they do not comply with U.S. regulation. According to the complaint, this became more obvious to the plaintiff when it looked at some of these counterfeit products that contained foreign language warnings on them, which are never found on JUUL products legally sold in the United States.
According to the plaintiff, it sent a cease-and-desist letter to the defendant to end the sales of the “unlawful Grey Market Goods,” yet the sales continued after the letter had been sent to the defendant.
The defendant is facing six counts, including trademark infringement – counterfeit goods, false designation of origin, unfair competition, trademark infringement – grey market goods, statutory unfair trade practices and common law unfair competition.
