Established in the Denver area in 1962, Auto-trol’s first product was a digitizer manufactured in the garage of the company founder, Bill Barnes.
Auto trol technology registration#
1996) (Shadur, J.) (com- plaint deficient where registration did not include defendant's product-fishing tackle floaters, issuing sua sponte order to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions not warranted).10.3 Auto-trol / Applicon / ComputerVision Auto-trolĪuto-trol was one of several companies that crossed the Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Design & Drafting boundaries. 1998) (Coar, J.) (no likelihood of confusion between expensive customized car audio equipment and claimant's cheap, off-the-shelf, sporting goods plaintiff offered no evidence of continuous commercial use of its mark on related goods) S Indus., Inc. 1998) (Castillo, J.) (defendants' allegedly infringing products-shoes and shoe-related products-not listed in SI's registration mark awarding attorneys fee for oppressive suit where "SI offered highly ques- tionable documents testimony from its principal that was inconsis- tent, uncorroborated, and in some cases, demon- strably false affidavits from career SI witness- es and otherwise utterly inadequate evidence") S Indus., Inc. Ill 1998) (Anderson, J.) (claimant's trade- mark registrations unrelated to alleged infringers' products, awarding attorneys fees of $193,558, where plaintiff's claims were frivolous) S Indus., Inc. We note that this is not the first time S Indus- tries has employed such tactics. Without a doubt, this suit was oppressive and an award of attorneys fees was warranted. This last maneuver cost Centra 2000 an additional 9 months of delay and required two judges to again review S Industries' unfounded arguments. Its counsel missed a scheduled hearing and then had the gall to allege that the fee amount was intentionally determined in his absence. It ignored a filing deadline, submitted motions late, or failed to properly file them at all. It refused to cooperate with Centra 2000 and provide specific objections to the requested fee amounts. Even after being chided for filing an oppressive suit and losing its opposition to an award of attorneys fees, S Industries continued its antics. And all of this occurred before attorneys fees were granted. Not only did S Industries forward indefensible claims, but it added to the cost and aggravation of this meritless litigation by not responding to discovery requests, repeatedly failing to properly serve or sign motions filed with the court, and failing to satisfy the requirements of the local rules of the district court. Based solely on the weakness of S Industries' claims, Judge Lindberg acted well within his discretion in granting attorneys fees.Īnd there is more. So, there never was a threat that consumers would have confused Centra 2000's highly sophisticated, customized, data management software, which is licensed to institutions in the petrochemical, aerospace, and manufacturing industries, with over-the- counter, discount mouse pads and sporting goods bearing the "Sentra" mark. In fact, the only computer- related licensing agreement that S Industries appears to have negotiated was an agreement with a producer of mouse pads. Although it claimed to have licensed the mark to third-party producers in computer-related fields, it failed to produce evidence of these alleged agreements. It never produced product packaging bearing the "Sentra" mark on computer-related products, nor did it present evidence of advertising for "Sentra" brand computer software.
Auto trol technology software#
During 4 years of litigation in this case, S Industries failed to produce evidence of a single sale of "Sentra" brand computer software or hardware. In fact, it appears it also had no product to protect from infringement.
Thus, from the outset, S Industries had no federallyprotected right to defend.
Without having a federal registration for the "Sentra" mark for use on computer software, S Industries filed suit alleging infringement. Judge Lindberg granted attorneys fees both because S Industries' trademark claims were meritless and because of the dilatory tactics it employed.
0 kommentar(er)
