Interviews
Quiksilver prevails in Federal Trademark case against Kymsta
17 Apr '08
3 min read
At the conclusion of the three-week retrial, the jury unanimously found that Quiksilver's “Roxy” trademark is valid and protectable and that Kymsta's “Roxywear” infringed the “Roxy” mark and constituted a false designation of the origin of Kymsta's goods.
Based upon the jury's findings, Federal District Court Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank found that Quiksilver has the unfettered right to use its “Roxy” trademark and barred Kymsta from any future use of the “Roxywear” trademark, subject to an 18 month phase-out period during which Kymsta must phase out all usage, while refraining from any expansion, marketing, licensing or sale of the mark. The ruling further put an end to millions of dollars of counter-claims by Kymsta against Quiksilver.
Mr. McKnight further stated, “From the beginning we had proposed a co-existence agreement that offered Kymsta their current use. Unfortunately, Kymsta chose to misleadingly portray this in the press and in the courtroom as a “David and Goliath” situation, when they knew the whole time they were only interested in extracting a large monetary settlement from Quiksilver.
We thank the jury and the court for their hard work and feel totally vindicated with an outcome that eliminates the possibility of future confusion and litigation with Kymsta and shows that we will vigorously defend ourselves when we know we're right.”
Based upon the jury's findings, Federal District Court Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank found that Quiksilver has the unfettered right to use its “Roxy” trademark and barred Kymsta from any future use of the “Roxywear” trademark, subject to an 18 month phase-out period during which Kymsta must phase out all usage, while refraining from any expansion, marketing, licensing or sale of the mark. The ruling further put an end to millions of dollars of counter-claims by Kymsta against Quiksilver.
Mr. McKnight further stated, “From the beginning we had proposed a co-existence agreement that offered Kymsta their current use. Unfortunately, Kymsta chose to misleadingly portray this in the press and in the courtroom as a “David and Goliath” situation, when they knew the whole time they were only interested in extracting a large monetary settlement from Quiksilver.
We thank the jury and the court for their hard work and feel totally vindicated with an outcome that eliminates the possibility of future confusion and litigation with Kymsta and shows that we will vigorously defend ourselves when we know we're right.”
Popular News
Leave your Comments
Editor’s Pick
Esteemed Clients
-Ltd..jpg?tr=w-120,h-60,c-at_max,cm-pad_resize,bg-ffffff "Thermore (Far East) Ltd.")
.jpg?tr=w-120,h-60,c-at_max,cm-pad_resize,bg-ffffff "Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSllC Ltd)")
.jpg?tr=w-120,h-60,c-at_max,cm-pad_resize,bg-ffffff "Taiwan Textile Federation (TTF)")
