Final Verdict: ONE Ind. wins lawsuit brought on by O'Neal

[quote="Amateurmx":2rqyhrdf]The federal court in San Diego yesterday brought an abrupt end to claims by Jim O'Neal Distributing, Inc. that One Industries, LLC was infringing its trademarks. United States District Judge John A. Houston granted summary judgment in favor of One Industries on all claims based on a finding that there was no evidence of any infringement.
[b:2rqyhrdf]The lawsuit began in May 2006, after O'Neal accused One Industries of trademark infringement and threatened to sue if One Industries did not change its name and logo. One Industries asked the federal court for a declaration that it was not infringing any of O'Neal's trademarks. In response, O'Neal counter-sued One Industries as well as its founders Ludo Boinnard and Marc Blanchard, claiming trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and seeking to cancel the company's registered trademarks.[/b:2rqyhrdf]

Yesterday's decision resolved all claims in the case in favor of One Industries.

"We filed this case to clear our name in the face of false accusations by O'Neal" said Marc Blanchard, designer and VP of One Industries, "and yesterday's decision accomplishes that goal. We work really hard to make great products with cutting edge design and the best materials. The idea that O'Neal was claiming we were copying them was pretty surreal."

"It's our second litigation in 4 years and both times we've been successful" added Ludo Boinnard, President and CEO of ONE Industries. "Our passion, dedication, hard work and success in our sport all originated from a great dream and we're not going to let anybody damage it or crush it. We will always defend our rights and push back hard with all legal efforts and means necessary".

For more information on ONE Industries, visit http://www.oneindustries.com[/quote:2rqyhrdf]
Help me out, I'm confused

O'neal sued One Ind., and then how did O'neal "counter-sue" One Ind.?

[quote="flarider":2nimkp35][quote="Amateurmx":2nimkp35]
[b:2nimkp35]The lawsuit began in May 2006, after O'Neal accused One Industries of trademark infringement and [u:2nimkp35]threatened to sue [/u:2nimkp35]if One Industries did not change its name and logo. One Industries asked the federal court for a declaration that it was not infringing any of O'Neal's trademarks. In response, O'Neal counter-sued One Industries as well as its founders Ludo Boinnard and Marc Blanchard, claiming trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and seeking to cancel the company's registered trademarks.[/b:2nimkp35]

[/quote:2nimkp35]
Help me out, I'm confused

O'neal sued One Ind., and then how did O'neal "counter-sue" One Ind.?[/quote:2nimkp35]
As I understand it, O'neal said they would sue if they didnt change, but didnt actually sue. So One took it to court to defend their name, and then Oneal counter sued.

OK

Thank you!

I never had a problem differentiating One Industries logos, and O'neal logos.

[quote="camp332":yw7isspw]I never had a problem differentiating One Industries logos, and O'neal logos.[/quote:yw7isspw]


...exactly.

O'Neal used an O'. One uses an O. But then again, so does Oakley. And then there's O'Neill.

Oprah's going to come in, kick some ass, and take all their Os.

This is a crazy industry sometimes. How much $$$ did this debacle cost O'Neal over a logo? Has anybody ever ordered a One Industries product and thought they were ordering from O'neal? I never knew O'neal was known for bike graphics and numbers.
Maybe they thought the costs would drive One Industries out of business.

I suspect it all comes down to lawyers and business school types who tell everybody that if you don't vigorously protect your trademarks all the time, they fall out of protection and everyone can rip you off (which is what the lawyers are doing anyway).

[quote="SteveS":2wsqddt1]I suspect it all comes down to lawyers and business school types who tell everybody that if you don't vigorously protect your trademarks all the time, they fall out of protection and everyone can rip you off (which is what the lawyers are doing anyway).[/quote:2wsqddt1]

Are you suggesting that lawyers, once an honorable profession that was about upholding the law ... have mutated into some form of blood-sucking parasite sub-breed, utterly devoid of morals or ethics, and that having created a separate universe of impossible legaleze that the average citizen cannot possibly navigate ... would sell even their own mother's soul in the name of their precious $400-500 per hour billing?

Wow, that's kinda cynical.

do they even sell competing products? The only thing I can think of is clothing. Oh, and helmets, but besides the logo (which I think look absolutely nothing alike, except that they are somewhat round) are easily distinguishable in style. WTF is O'Neal's problem?
this to me is like if FMF sued pro circuit because their logos are both in the shape of an oval.

I'll never buy an O'Neal product again! (not that I ever did anyway " title="Wink"> )

The only thing that I see is that there is a "ONE" in ONEal...

A win for the hometown boys.

O'NEAL files Appeal to summary Judgment ruling in legal battle against ONE Ind.


February 15, 2008

Jim O'NEAL Distributing Inc. has filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a summary judgment motion granted in the Southern District of California involving a trademark infringement case against One Industries.

The legal matter erupted in early 2006 after several instances of product confusion with customers and consumer web sites. The customer confusion has continued with numerous documented instances of confusion to date from consumers, dealers, vendors and industry veterans.

O'NEAL has been distributing and producing protective apparel and equipment for motorcycle use since 1970. ONE had been a graphic company (motorcycle stickers) since it was founded in 1999. More recently ONE had decided it would sell a protective apparel line by introducing helmets and thus, the instances of confusion began.

Joseph Trojan Esq., attorney for O'NEAL says, "Our client had made several offers to ONE to allow them to simply use the name ONE INDUSTRIES or ONE IND on their helmets so that there would be no confusion in the marketplace. ONE refused to do so and uses the ONE logo and or an O logo in stylized versions without the word industries on many of their helmet graphics. ONE had chosen to first file claims in this matter and O'NEAL then filed counter claims. In yesterdays decision ONE was DENIED their request for damages and or re-imbursement of legal fees. Thus the judgment did not award ONE a single penny in this matter. We committed to this case and we are looking forward to putting this matter before a jury in federal court."

For more information on O'NEAL and it's fine products, visit http://www.oneal.com

[quote="omoto":lwyrgse7]O'NEAL files Appeal to summary Judgment ruling in legal battle against ONE Ind.


Joseph Trojan(?) Esq., attorney for O'NEAL says, " [i:lwyrgse7]We committed to this case and we are looking forward to putting this matter before a jury in federal court."[/i:lwyrgse7]
[/quote:lwyrgse7]

Interpretation: "We are committed to try and take every dollar we can from Jim O'NEal by convincing him to move forward with a challenge that we will probably lose."

Who the fock ever confused ONEAL with ONE in the first place?

BTW "omoto", nice newb shill job. What a douche...