Game call makers in legal battle over realistic turkey call
Two game call makers are embroiled in a legal dispute over highly realistic turkey calls that are popular with hunters.
April 10, 2013 at 07:46 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Two game call makers are embroiled in a legal dispute over highly realistic turkey calls that are popular with hunters.
Down-N-Dirty Outdoors says it created its new air-blown turkey gobble call in 2010, and applied for a patent on it in 2011. The air-blown call is said to be more realistic than other types of calls on the market, such as shake calls. Down-N-Dirty met with many competitors to discuss joint ventures, including Knight & Hale Game Calls, which Down-N-Dirty claims it met with three times in the fall of 2011.
Though many imitation products flooded the market after the call debuted, Down-N-Dirty claims that Knight & Hale dismantled one of its calls and copied the design for its “Hale Fire” call. Down-N-Dirty sued Knight & Hale, asking a judge to stop Knight & Hale from selling Hale Fire and seeking unspecified damages.
Read more at the Star Tribune.
For more on IP, see these stories on InsideCounsel:
Two game call makers are embroiled in a legal dispute over highly realistic turkey calls that are popular with hunters.
Down-N-Dirty Outdoors says it created its new air-blown turkey gobble call in 2010, and applied for a patent on it in 2011. The air-blown call is said to be more realistic than other types of calls on the market, such as shake calls. Down-N-Dirty met with many competitors to discuss joint ventures, including Knight & Hale Game Calls, which Down-N-Dirty claims it met with three times in the fall of 2011.
Though many imitation products flooded the market after the call debuted, Down-N-Dirty claims that Knight & Hale dismantled one of its calls and copied the design for its “Hale Fire” call. Down-N-Dirty sued Knight & Hale, asking a judge to stop Knight & Hale from selling Hale Fire and seeking unspecified damages.
Read more at the Star Tribune.
For more on IP, see these stories on InsideCounsel:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
What to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute read
The Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Tesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
2 minute read
Ex-Marathon General Counsel Takes Legal Reins of Another Energy Company
Trending Stories
- 1Sullivan & Cromwell Signals 5-Day RTO Expectation as Law Firms Remain Split on Optimal Attendance
- 2CLOSED: These Georgia Courts Won't Open Jan. 10
- 3Volkswagen Hit With Consumer Class Action Alleging Defective SUV Engines
- 4‘Be Comfortable With the Uncomfortable’
- 5Here's What Corporate Litigators Expect Delaware Courts to Address in 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
