Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

Moke America LLC and Moke International Limited, along with Moke USA, LLC, are competing for the U.S. trademark rights to the "MOKE" mark, used for their low-speed, open-air vehicles. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that "MOKE" is a generic term for these vehicles, meaning it cannot be a trademark owned by either party. This finding was based on the history of the Moke vehicles, which were originally produced by the British Motor Corporation (BMC) and later by other manufacturers, and the term "Moke" becoming synonymous with a style of vehicle.The district court's decision followed a bench trial where Moke America failed to prove its priority of use. The court then considered whether the MOKE mark was distinctive or generic. Both parties argued that the mark was inherently distinctive, but the court found it to be generic based on the evidence presented, including the parties' marketing efforts and the testimony of a Moke America witness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court correctly placed the burden on the parties to prove that "MOKE" is not a generic term. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the evidence was insufficient to either affirm or outright reverse the district court's finding of genericness. The court noted that more evidence is needed to determine whether "MOKE" is a generic term or an inherently distinctive mark that was abandoned by its original owner, BMC.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to gather additional evidence on the distinctiveness or genericness of the "MOKE" mark. The parties will continue to bear the burden of proving that the mark is not generic. The court suggested that appointing a disinterested expert witness might be helpful in resolving the issue. View "Moke America LLC v. Moke International Limited" on Justia Law

Tangle, Inc. holds copyright registrations for seven kinetic and manipulable sculptures made from 17 or 18 identical, connected, 90-degree curved tubular segments that can be twisted or turned 360 degrees. Aritzia, Inc. owns and operates retail stores and used similar sculptures in their store windows. Tangle alleged that Aritzia's sculptures infringed on their copyrighted works and also claimed trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Tangle's initial copyright infringement claim for failure to state a claim but allowed Tangle to amend its complaint. Tangle filed an amended complaint, which was again dismissed. Tangle then filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding a trade dress infringement claim. The district court dismissed both claims, giving Tangle leave to amend. Tangle chose not to amend further and instead appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Tangle’s copyright claim, holding that Tangle adequately alleged valid copyrights in its kinetic and manipulable sculptures. The court found that the sculptures were sufficiently "fixed" in a tangible medium for copyright purposes, despite their ability to move into various poses. The court also held that Tangle plausibly alleged that Aritzia's sculptures were substantially similar to Tangle's protected works under the "extrinsic test."However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Tangle’s trade dress infringement claim. The court agreed that Tangle failed to provide a complete recitation of the concrete elements of its alleged trade dress, which is necessary to give adequate notice of the asserted trade dress.The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion. View "TANGLE, INC. V. ARITZIA, INC." on Justia Law

CeramTec GmbH manufactures artificial hip components made from zirconia-toughened alumina (ZTA) ceramic, which contains chromium oxide (chromia) and is marketed under the name "Biolox Delta." The addition of chromia gives the ceramic a pink color. CeramTec held U.S. Patent 5,830,816 (the '816 patent) for the chemical composition of Biolox Delta until it expired in January 2013. In January 2012, CeramTec applied for trademarks for the pink color of its ceramic hip components, which were registered on the Supplemental Register in April 2013. CoorsTek Bioceramics LLC, a competitor, manufactures similar ceramic hip implants and filed a lawsuit and a cancellation petition with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in 2014, arguing that the pink color was functional and should not be trademarked.The Board found in favor of CoorsTek, concluding that the pink color was functional for ceramic hip components. The Board analyzed the functionality under the four factors from In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., and found that CeramTec's patents and public communications disclosed the functional benefits of chromia, including increased hardness. The Board also found that there was no probative evidence of functionally equivalent designs and conflicting evidence regarding the cost of manufacturing. The Board rejected CeramTec's unclean hands defense, which argued that CoorsTek should be precluded from challenging the trademarks due to its previous statements about chromia's lack of material benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision. The court held that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Board correctly applied the burden of proof. The court also addressed CeramTec's arguments regarding the Board's analysis of the Morton-Norwich factors and the unclean hands defense, finding no reversible error. The court concluded that the pink color of CeramTec's ceramic hip components was functional and not eligible for trademark protection. View "CERAMTEC GMBH v. COORSTEK BIOCERAMICS LLC " on Justia Law

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. ("LegalForce USA"), a California S corporation operating legal services websites, sued LegalForce, Inc. ("LegalForce Japan"), a Japanese corporation providing legal software services, for trademark infringement. LegalForce USA alleged that LegalForce Japan's U.S. expansion plans, website ownership, and advertising and selling of equity infringed its trademark. The district court dismissed the website claims for lack of jurisdiction and the expansion plan claims as unripe. The claims concerning equity were dismissed for failure to state a claim.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed all claims except those related to the advertising and selling of equity. The court held that it had jurisdiction over these claims but dismissed them for failure to state a claim, reasoning that advertising and selling equity is not connected to the sale of goods or services and thus cannot constitute trademark infringement. The court also found that LegalForce USA failed to justify an extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that using a trademark in connection with the sale of equity does not constitute using the mark in connection with "goods or services" under the Lanham Act. The court also affirmed that LegalForce Japan's services in Japan could not satisfy the "in connection with" goods or services requirement under the Lanham Act, as the relevant conduct occurred outside U.S. territory. The court concluded that the Lanham Act does not apply extraterritorially in this context. View "LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE, PC V. LEGALFORCE, INC." on Justia Law

Charles Curry, Jr., a former competitive powerlifter and bodybuilder, started a nutritional supplements business called Get Diesel Nutrition in 2002. He began selling a testosterone-boosting supplement called "Diesel Test" in 2005. Revolution Laboratories, LLC, founded by Joshua and Barry Nussbaum, also sold a supplement called "Diesel Test" starting in 2016. Curry, acting without a lawyer, filed a lawsuit against Revolution and the Nussbaums in 2017, asserting trademark claims under the federal Lanham Act and Illinois common law. Curry later obtained counsel, and the case proceeded to a jury trial in May 2023, resulting in a verdict for Curry.The jury awarded Curry $2,500 in actual damages for loss of goodwill and reputation and $500,000 as disgorgement of Revolution’s profits from the infringement. Additionally, the jury awarded Curry $300,000 in punitive damages against each of Joshua, Barry, and Revolution, totaling $900,000. The district court later ruled that disgorgement of profits under the Lanham Act is an equitable remedy for the judge to decide and recalculated the appropriate profits award to be $547,095.44.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Defendants challenged the district court's decision to allow Curry's punitive damages request to go to the jury and argued that the punitive damage awards were excessive in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Curry to seek punitive damages and that the punitive damage awards were not unconstitutionally excessive. The court concluded that the ratio of punitive damages to the combined compensatory and disgorgement awards was constitutionally permissible. View "Curry v. Revolution Laboratories, LLC" on Justia Law

Oracle International Corporation sued Rimini Street, Inc. for copyright infringement and violations of the Lanham Act. Oracle alleged that Rimini, a third-party provider of software support services, infringed on its copyrights by using Oracle's software in unauthorized ways. Rimini had previously been found to infringe Oracle's copyrights and had changed its business model, seeking a declaratory judgment that its new processes did not infringe Oracle's copyrights. Oracle counterclaimed, leading to a bench trial.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada found that Rimini's new processes still infringed Oracle's copyrights and issued a permanent injunction against Rimini. The court ordered Rimini to delete various software files and issue a press release correcting alleged misstatements. Rimini appealed the decision, challenging several aspects of the district court's rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's holding that Rimini created infringing derivative works based solely on interoperability with Oracle's programs. The court explained that a derivative work must incorporate Oracle's copyrighted work, either literally or nonliterally. The court also vacated the district court's ruling striking Rimini's affirmative defense under 17 U.S.C. § 117(a), which allows the owner of a copy of a computer program to make another copy for certain purposes.Additionally, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's ruling that Rimini's creation of "gap customer" environments and use of automated tools to deliver PeopleSoft updates constituted copyright infringement. The court also reversed the district court's ruling that Rimini's security-related statements, except for one about "holistic security," constituted false advertising under the Lanham Act. The court vacated the portions of the injunction appealed by Rimini and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION V. RIMINI STREET, INC." on Justia Law

US Ghost Adventures, LLC (Ghost Adventures) operates a bed and breakfast at the Lizzie Borden House in Fall River, Massachusetts, offering ghost tours and related activities. Ghost Adventures holds federal trademarks for the name "Lizzie Borden" and a hatchet logo. Miss Lizzie's Coffee LLC (Miss Lizzie's) opened a coffee shop next to the Lizzie Borden House, using the Lizzie Borden story in its marketing, including a hatchet logo and references to being "The Most Haunted Coffee Shop in the World." Some visitors mistakenly believed the two businesses were affiliated.Ghost Adventures sued Miss Lizzie's in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for trademark infringement and unfair competition, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Miss Lizzie's from using the "Lizzie Borden" name and hatchet logo. The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that Ghost Adventures failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court determined that the key element in any infringement action is the likelihood of confusion, which Ghost Adventures did not demonstrate. The court found that Miss Lizzie's hatchet logo and use of the name "Lizzie" were not similar enough to Ghost Adventures' trademarks to cause confusion.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the hatchet logos were dissimilar and that Miss Lizzie's reference to "Lizzie" was to the historical figure, not the trademark. The court also found that any consumer confusion was due to the proximity of the businesses and their common reliance on the Lizzie Borden story, not the similarity of their marks. The court concluded that Ghost Adventures did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "US Ghost Adventures, LLC v. Miss Lizzie's Coffee LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a trademark infringement dispute between two Arizona-based personal injury law firms. The plaintiff, Lerner & Rowe, PC, owns three registered trademarks, including the name "Lerner & Rowe." The defendant, Brown, Engstrand & Shely, LLC, doing business as The Accident Law Group (ALG), used a marketing strategy called "conquesting" by purchasing the term "Lerner & Rowe" as a Google Ads keyword. This caused ALG's advertisements to appear when users searched for "Lerner & Rowe" on Google.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of ALG on Lerner & Rowe's claims of trademark infringement and unjust enrichment but denied summary judgment on the unfair competition claims. ALG moved for reconsideration, and the district court subsequently granted summary judgment on all claims. Lerner & Rowe appealed the ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Lerner & Rowe failed to establish that ALG's use of the "Lerner & Rowe" mark was likely to cause consumer confusion. The court found that while the strength of the mark favored Lerner & Rowe, the evidence of actual confusion was de minimis, the reasonably prudent consumer's degree of care and the labeling and appearance of ALG's advertisements weighed in favor of ALG. The court concluded that Lerner & Rowe did not establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the likelihood of confusion, which is essential for a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act. The judgment was affirmed. View "LERNER & ROWE PC V. BROWN ENGSTRAND & SHELY LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two companies, 1-800 Contacts, Inc. (Plaintiff-Appellant) and JAND, Inc., doing business as Warby Parker (Defendant-Appellee). 1-800 Contacts alleged that Warby Parker used its trademarks in keyword search advertisements, violating the federal Lanham Act and New York State common law. Specifically, 1-800 Contacts claimed that Warby Parker purchased keywords consisting of 1-800 Contacts' trademarks to divert customers searching for 1-800 Contacts to Warby Parker's website. However, 1-800 Contacts did not allege that Warby Parker used its trademarks in any other way beyond purchasing them as keywords.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Warby Parker's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the case. The district court applied the Polaroid test to determine the likelihood of consumer confusion and found that although 1-800 Contacts' trademarks were strong and there were indications of bad faith by Warby Parker, these factors were insufficient to establish a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court emphasized that Warby Parker's advertisements and landing pages clearly displayed Warby Parker's own mark, which was substantially different from 1-800 Contacts' marks.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the mere act of purchasing a competitor's trademarks as keywords does not constitute trademark infringement. It found that 1-800 Contacts failed to plausibly allege any likelihood of consumer confusion under the Polaroid test. The court noted that Warby Parker's advertisements and landing pages did not use 1-800 Contacts' trademarks and were clearly marked with Warby Parker's own branding, making it unlikely that consumers would be confused about the source or affiliation of the advertisements. View "1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. JAND, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the "Pollo Picú" trademark used in the sale of fresh chicken. Productos Avícolas del Sur, Inc. (PAS) sold chicken under this trademark until 2011, when financial difficulties forced the company to stop. In 2016, To-Ricos, Ltd. (To-Ricos) applied to register the Picú mark, believing PAS had abandoned it. PAS opposed the application, leading To-Ricos to seek a declaratory judgment in federal district court to establish its ownership of the mark. The district court granted summary judgment for To-Ricos, concluding that PAS had abandoned the mark.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico found that PAS had not used the Picú mark for at least three consecutive years, establishing a prima facie case of abandonment. PAS argued that its financial difficulties and ongoing litigation with its bank excused its nonuse of the mark and that it intended to resume use. However, the district court determined that PAS did not provide sufficient evidence of intent to resume use within the statutory period and thus granted summary judgment in favor of To-Ricos.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that PAS failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment. PAS's attempts to sell the mark in 2012, its 2014 settlement agreement with the bank, and its 2017 licensing agreement with IMEX did not demonstrate an intent to resume use of the mark within the relevant statutory period. The court emphasized that mere explanations for nonuse or vague intentions to resume use are insufficient to rebut the presumption of abandonment. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, establishing To-Ricos as the rightful owner of the Picú mark. View "To-Ricos, Ltd. v. Productos Avicolas del Sur, Inc." on Justia Law