The U.S. District Court for the Eastern or Western District of Arkansas was chosen as the forum for litigating the following case(s), as published by Justia:
- Flexible Staffing Services, Inc. et al v. Integro Employment Services, Inc.; Case Number: 5:2008cv05018; Filed: January 22, 2008; Court: Arkansas Western District Court
Flexible Staffing Services (FSS) seeks a declaratory judgment that they do not infringe the trademark rights claimed by Integro Employment Services. Both parties to this case are temporary/temp-to-hire staffing services, although plaintiff characterizes this using the term “flexible contract staffing service.” A quick google search for the term turned up only one use, and it wasn’t by either party to this case. However, Flexible Staffing Services, a regional player operating in 10 states, is asking that the court declare “the words ‘FLEXIBLE’ and ‘STAFFING are generic when used in connection with temp-to-hire and flexible contract staffing services. Integro, the northwest Arkansas (Lowell, Ar) staffing company, previously claimed common law trademark rights to “flexible staffing” by sending a cease-and-desist letter to Flexible Staffing Services’ Arkansas Affiliate (FSSOA) regarding the use of the name “Flexible Staffing.” They then sued and sought a temporary restraining order against FSSOA, the Arkansas subsidiary which is pending. FSS brought this Federal action in order to end run the state suit, of which they are not a party and in which they claim they cannot intervene. Why they did not attempt to intervene in the State action I am not sure. Under Rule 24(b)(2), which provides for intervention “when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2), & Ark. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2), they should have been able to assert their rights in that case.
Filed under: Arkansas IP Litigation
