“We believe the defendants are playing “hide the ball” with the truth about disregarding their knowledge of...use of the MINT trademark," HS Kim, Innospan Corp.
Santa Clara, CA (PRWEB) May 19, 2011
Renowned Intellectual Property litigation attorney William E. Levin will join the Innospan Corporation legal team today in taking the key deposition of Mint Software’s CEO Aaron Patzer as part of Innospan’s major trademark lawsuit against Intuit and Mint Software, it was announced today by HS Kim, President and Founder of Innospan Corp.
This deposition marks the first time Innospan, including its original counsel, Mr. Brian Song, together with Levin, will be able to examine the leading senior executive from Mint. The case is Innospan Corp. v. Intuit Inc., Mint Software Inc., Shasta Ventures GP, LLP, et al, No. C 10-04422 WHA in United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
“The deposition of Mint Software’s CEO today is critical because Mint Software incredibly denies that it was aware of the plaintiff’s MINT trademark when it began to use the infringing MINT mark, despite the fact that Mint Software had an access to the plaintiff’s MINT trademark through Shasta Ventures, its leading series A investor.” said Kim. “We believe the defendants are playing “hide the ball” with the truth about disregarding their knowledge of Plaintiff’s first use of the MINT trademark.”
Renowned for his expertise in intellectual property law, Levin has worked on many high-profile and large damages legal cases, including one resulting in a jury verdict and judgment (later set aside) of $143 million dollars for trademark infringement. Levin recently lead the launch of Marquis IP, an intellectual property litigation law firm based in Newport Beach, CA.
“This is truly a “David vs. Goliath” story in which the name and trademark of a small innovative company is being overshadowed by a corporate giant,” said Kim. “We believe Intuit and Mint Software have simply tried to overwhelm us with their massive promotion and advertising using their virtually identical MINT trademark.”
Innospan and its related companies, which provide various technology products and services including high speed Internet solutions, IT consulting services, movable printer sales and service, social networking service and mobile application development in varying stages, have been using a distinctive “mint” trademark since July 2005. The lawsuit alleges that after Shasta Ventures GP, LLC, considered investing in Mint Communications, Inc. i.e., the predecessor of Innospan, the company sent Shasta business plans displaying the MINT mark. While Shasta declined to invest, shortly after, it invested in Mint Software, Inc., which allegedly copied the MINT mark.
Due to Mint and Intuit’s use of its MINT trademark, Innospan alleges its damages include all of the profits made by Intuit and Mint Software from the use of the MINT trademark, which could potentially be over $ 100 million to date. Intuit and Mint Software are in the business of providing free online personal financial services, and have used several different MINT trademarks for their business between 2006 and 2010.
Filed in the fall of 2010, the lawsuit has faced several roadblocks, including removing the action to federal court and filing motions to dismiss it but the main claims of the lawsuit survived those motions. Currently the claims upheld by the Court in the Third Amended Complaint include federal infringement of the MINT mark, copyright infringement, statutory and common law unfair competition and related claims. The Court also rebuffed Defendants’ requests to treat their motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment in December, 2010. The case is now in the discovery stage and scheduled for a jury trial in February, 2012.
“The Court denied dismissal of Innospan’s key claims against Intuit and Mint Software, including trademark and copyright infringement and unfair competition, and we intend to proceed aggressively to a jury trial in this case,” said Levin. “We are looking forward to the information and documents Mr. Patzer should provide and are confident it will support the large damages Plaintiff is seeking for what we believe is a very willful infringement of our client’s MINT trademark and design.”
As part of its requests for reliefs, Innospan is seeking a permanent injunction against MINT’s and INTUIT’s further use of their virtually identical mark.
ABOUT MARQUIS IP
Based in Newport Beach, CA, Marquis IP, is a national intellectual property law firm specializing in trademark, trade dress, and related litigation co-founded by William E. Levin. For more information, please visit the Marquis IP website at http://www.marquis-ip.com.
ABOUT INNOSPAN CORP.
Innospan and its predecessor and related companies, first founded in June 2005, provide various technology products and services including high speed Internet solutions, IT consulting services, movable printer sales and service (http://www.inailparty.com ), social networking services (http://www.gleeu.com) and mobile application development (http://www.mintcom.net) . The company is headquartered in Santa Clara, CA. For more information, please visit the Innospan websites at http://www.mintcom.net.
For additional information regarding this press release, contact Peter Bylsma at 310-795-8532