This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 12/17/2021 at 05:46:32 (UTC).

Proton AG v. Metallicus, Inc.

Case Summary

On December 16, 2021, Proton AG (“Proton” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Jennifer L. Barry of Latham & Watkins LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Metallicus, Inc. (“Metal” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages along with prejudgment interest among other relief for the alleged trademark infringement by Defendant. The case was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California.

 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “Proton has embarked on this mission under its tradename, PROTON TECHNOLOGIES®, and it offers several products under various PROTON-derivative trademarks, all of which share the common element that is Proton’s house mark, PROTON” and “Proton’s innovative and secure email services proved to be extremely popular with consumers. As a result, Proton was quickly able to expand its technology offerings” and “Founded in 2016, Defendant offers services under the METAL and METAL PAY marks to provide consumers with the “easiest way to buy, sell, and trade crypto[currency].”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “After operating under the METAL and METAL PAY marks for several years, Defendant recently began using the PROTON mark, as well as several other PROTON derivative marks (i.e., the Metal PROTON Marks), to offer various technology services, including messaging services, relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies” and “Further, Defendant owns the www.protonmarket.com domain name where it markets the ability to create and sell your own non-fungible tokens (NFTs) using the PROTON MARKET mark” and “Defendant also advertises its services under the PROTON and PROTONXPR marks on various social media platforms, including, but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter (the “Social Media Accounts”).”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “In light of Proton’s clearly senior and superior rights in the PROTON Marks, Proton is very concerned that consumers will likely be confused and mistakenly believe that Defendant and its goods and/or services are endorsed, approved, or sponsored by, or affiliated, connected, or associated with, Proton. In fact, consumer confusion has already occurred and will continue to occur unless Defendant is stopped” and “Defendant’s continued use of the confusingly similar Infringing Marks in commerce violates Protons’s valuable intellectual property rights in the PROTON Marks and PROTON Registrations, and Defendant’s knowing, intentional, willful, and malicious use of this mark is damaging to Proton and Proton’s property” and “Defendant’s use of the Infringing Marks in commerce has already caused consumer confusion.”

 

There are four claims of relief laid down by Plaintiff. The first claim is for the alleged Federal Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114. The second claim is for the alleged Federal Unfair Competition/False Designation of Origin – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The third claim is for the alleged Common Law Trademark Infringement. The fourth claim is for the alleged Common Law Unfair Competition.

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court for injunctive relief and declaratory relief with respect to the alleged trademark infringement, along with actual damages, as well as all of Defendant’s profits or gains of any kind from its acts of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition, including a trebling of those damages; punitive damages; reasonable attorneys’ fees; costs, disbursements, and other expenses along with prejudgment interest and any other relief the court deems just.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:21-CV-09714

  • Filing Date:

    12/16/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Trademark

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Proton AG

Defendant

Metallicus, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Jennifer L. Barry

Attorney at Latham & Watkins LLP

12670 High Bluff Drive

San Diego, CA 92130

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

(#2) Proposed Summons. (Barry, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/16/2021) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

#3

(#3) Rule 7.1 Disclosures by Proton AG (Barry, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/16/2021) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

#4

(#4) REPORT on the filing or determination of an action regarding Trademark (cc: form mailed to register). (Barry, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/16/2021) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) REPORT on the filing or determination of an action regarding Trademark (cc: form mailed to register). (Barry, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/16/2021) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Rule 7.1 Disclosures by Proton AG (Barry, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/16/2021) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Proposed Summons. (Barry, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/16/2021) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Metallicus, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACANDC-16728761.). Filed byProton AG. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Barry, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/16/2021) (Entered: 12/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Jennifer L Barry