ZOSMA VENTURES, INC. v. NAZARI

“This Action stems from Plaintiff Zosma Ventures, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) trademark infringement dispute with Defendants Mojdeh Nazari (“Nazari”), Viva Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Viva”), and American Export Lines, Inc. (“AEL”) (collectively, “Defendants”).1

Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation that is in the business of selling dietary and nutritional supplements, such as fish oil supplements, through its subsidiary company, Formulated Sciences, Inc. (“Formulated Sciences”), a California Corporation. Plaintiff is the trademark holder of various Formulated Sciences trademarks (“Zosma Trademarks”), including the mark FORMULATED SCIENCES, that are at issue in this Action.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nazari was previously the exclusive licensee of its products in the Middle East between 2003 and 2008. However, Plaintiff alleges that in 2008, Defendant Nazari ceased communications with Plaintiff, reneged on a purchased order, and discontinued her rights to use Plaintiff’s trademark.

Plaintiff alleges that in 2010, it learned that counterfeit fish oil products bearing the Zosma Trademarks were being sold in Iran, and suspected that Defendant Nazari was involved. Some of the nutritional supplements allegedly bear the name “FormAlated Sciences.” Further, in December 2011, Defendant Givi (who has since been dismissed from this Action) allegedly submitted a trademark application to the USPTO for the mark FORMATIVE SCIENTISTS, which was denied.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants operated a multinational counterfeiting scheme with its nerve center in Los Angeles involving fish oil products. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Nazari and Givi utilized a manufacturer, Defendant Viva, located in British Columbia, to produce fish oil products that were labeled with Plaintiff’s trademarks or marks confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s trademarks. Plaintiff alleges that once Viva completed manufacture of the fish oil products, the goods were shipped to Iranthrough the United States by AEL.

In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) federal trademark infringement and counterfeiting under the Lanham Act; (2) unfair competition and false designation under the Lanham Act; (3) federal trademark dilution under the Lanham Act; (4) common law trademark and trade name infringement; (5) California trademark dilution; and (6) California state law unfair competition.”

ZOSMA VENTURES, INC. v. NAZARI   No. CV 12-1404 RSWL (FFMx).

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020130531A06/ZOSMA%20VENTURES,%20INC.%20v.%20NAZARI

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under World Events

AVIARA PARKWAY FARMS, INC. v. AGROPECUARIA LA FINCA

“Service of process on Defendants’ attorneys was improper, and to the extent that Plaintiffs’ brief asks the court to authorize service on Defendants’ attorneys under Rule 4.1, that request is unsupported by case law authority and is denied.2 In order to proceed, Plaintiffs must effect proper service on the Farmers and GC. The court recognizes Plaintiffs’ frustration with being forced to serve parties it believes have acted in concert with parties to the original case, but allowing circumvention of proper service here would necessitate assuming the correctness of the facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt. The court cannot do so. The motion to quash service is GRANTED.”

AVIARA PARKWAY FARMS, INC. v. AGROPECUARIA LA FINCA Case No. 8-cv-2301-JM-BLM.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020120327A23/AVIARA%20PARKWAY%20FARMS,%20INC.%20v.%20AGROPECUARIA%20LA%20FINCA

Leave a comment

Filed under World Events

Need a Lawyer?

Sharif Faust Lawyers, Ltd. 1010 Second Ave. 24th Floor San Diego, California 92101 Tel.: (619) 233-6600 Fax: (619) 233-6602 sharif@shariffaust.com

Sharif Faust Lawyers, Ltd.
1010 Second Ave.
24th Floor
San Diego, California 92101
Tel.: (619) 233-6600
Fax: (619) 233-6602
sharif@shariffaust.com

Leave a comment

Filed under World Events

Divorce in California: What does “living separate and apart” mean?

In re Marriage of Davis:

Pull up the actual PDF text of the California Supreme Court’s ruling–click below:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S215050.PDF

It appears that “Living separate and apart” will still require the additional objective showing of the “subjective intent to end the marital relationship.”

“From this survey of the history of section 771(a) and its predecessor statutes, as judicially construed, we are convinced that the Legislature intended the statutory phrase “living separate and apart” to require both separate residences and accompanying demonstrated intent to end the marital relationship. Consistent with the statute’s history and the developed standard articulated by the case law, we hold that “living separate and apart” refers to a situation in which spouses are living in separate residences and at least one of them has the subjective intent to end the marital relationship, which intent is objectively evidenced by words or conduct reflecting that there is a complete and final break in the marriage relationship.”

Leave a comment

Filed under World Events

Check out my new Law Practice

SHARIF | FAUST LAWYERS, LTD.
We are trusted and experienced lawyers who deliver results through trial and appellate level proceedings. We specialize in civil business, criminal defense, and family proceedings.We understand that for many individuals and businesses, a lawsuit is a once-in-a-lifetime event. Regardless of whether you are bringing or defending the action, the difference between success and defeat can be significant. With this in mind, we are ready to go to work for you and protect your rights.We do not charge any fees for the first hour of our initial consultation, and are willing to discuss alternative payment arrangements. We also speak Farsi, or Persian.

 

www.shariffaust.com

Leave a comment

Filed under World Events

FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL.

“At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petitioner claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals.”

Leave a comment

April 5, 2012 · 1:50 pm

FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS

FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “strip-searching” nonindictable offenders without reasonable suspicion does NOT violate the Fourth Amendment.

WHY is it that the conservatives in the government (i.e. The Supreme Court) almost always extend the government’s power to violate our dignity?

WHAT happened to all that conservative stance against the “Intrusive Government” and for individual dignity?

“At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petitioner claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals.”

1 Comment

April 4, 2012 · 10:48 am