Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

BCN filed suit against Catalina and three of its individual officers or employees, alleging deceptive trade practices, trademark violations, and related fraud and tort claims. BCN's claims stemmed from defendants' creation of CouponNetwork.com, a website and business "remarkably similar" to BCN's existing business, BrandCouponNetwork.com. The court vacated the district court's judgment to the extent that it dismissed BCN's claims under Rule 12(b)(6) as time barred because the district court erred in considering evidence outside the pleadings and a genuine issue of material fact appeared to exist regarding the timeliness of BCN's claims which would preclude summary judgment. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the individual defendants where BCN failed to preserve its claims where BCN did not present it to the district court and BCN's claims were conclusional. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina Marketing Corp., et al." on Justia Law

In the 1990s, Specht founded Android Data Corporation, and registered the “Android Data” trademark. The company ceased principal operations in 2002, but the mark remained registered to it. Five years later, Google Inc. introduced its new Android operating system for mobile phones. Specht sued for infringement. Google counterclaimed that Specht had abandoned the mark after 2002, forfeiting his ability to assert rights to it. The district court entered summary judgment for Google. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that the undisputed evidence established that Specht abandoned the mark. View "Specht v. Google Inc." on Justia Law

New York based Stone Lion manages a hedge fund that focuses on credit opportunities. Lion, a United Kingdom private equity firm, invests primarily in companies that sell consumer products. Lion has two marks registered with the Patent and Trademark Office and started using the marks in the U.S. in 2005. Lion filed applications for “LION CAPITAL” and “LION” in 2005 and 2007, respectively, for services including “financial and investment planning and research,” “investment management services,” “capital investment consultation,” “equity capital investment,” and “venture capital services” Lion has priority over Stone Lion with respect to those marks. In August 2008, Stone Lion filed an intent-to-use application for the mark “STONE LION CAPITAL,” proposing to use the mark in connection with “financial services, namely investment advisory services, management of investment funds, and fund investment services.” Lion opposed the registration under section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(d), alleging that the proposed mark would likely cause confusion with Lion’s registered marks when used for Stone Lion’s recited financial services. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board conducted the likelihood of confusion inquiry pursuant to 13 factors and refused registration. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the Board had substantial evidence to support its conclusion. View "Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital, LLP" on Justia Law

Lovely Skin filed suit against Ishtar, alleging four counts of trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1127, and common law unfair competition and injury to business reputation in violation of Nebraska law. Ishtar counterclaimed, seeking cancellation of the registrations of Lovely Skin's two trademarks. The court concluded that Ishtar did not demonstrate that Lovely Skin's trademarks were not registrable because they lacked acquired distinctiveness at the time of their registrations. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's judgment canceling the registrations of LOVELYSKIN and LOVELYSKIN.COM. The court also concluded that the district court did not commit clear error in considering all of the SquirtCo v. Seven-Up Company factors and determining that no likelihood of confusion existed between Lovely Skin's trademarks and Ishtar's website. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment for Ishtar on all four counts. View "Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Products, LLC" on Justia Law

Airs International, a purported owner of an ANGEL DREAMS trademark, filed suit against Victoria's Secret alleging breach of contract claims and requesting cancellation of Victoria's Secret's registered DREAM ANGELS trademark. On appeal, Airs International challenged the district court's dismissal of its claims. The court held that Section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1119, did not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Because Airs Aromatics had not appealed the dismissal of the only claims it brought that could support jurisdiction, the district court's judgment dismissing this action with prejudice must be affirmed. Airs Aromatics has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for trademark infringement where it failed to allege that the litigation was the kind of continuous, public usage of a trademark that served to identify the marked goods to the public as those of the mark's owner. Finally, leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Airs Aromatics v. Victoria's Secret" on Justia Law

Experience Hendrix filed suit against Pitsicalis alleging that Pitsicalis was infringing trademarks in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051-1127, and that the trademark infringement also amounted to an unfair or deceptive trade practice proscribed by Washington's Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), Wash. Rev. Code 19.86.010-19.86.920. Determining that Pitsicalis had Article III standing, the court concluded, inter alia, that the WPRA was constitutional as applied to the narrow set of non-speculative circumstances at issue in this case; Pitsicalis was liable under the Lanham Act for using domain names that infringed Experience Hendrix's trademark "Hendrix"; and Paragraph 5 of the permanent injunction failed to state clearly the terms of the injunction and did not describe in reasonable detail the acts that were and were not restrained. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's determination that the Washington statute was unconstitutional and remanded Pitsicalis's declaratory judgment claims pertaining to the WPRA with instructions to enter judgment on those claims in favor of Experience Hendrix; affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment on Experience Hendrix's claim that Pitsicalis's use of domain names infringed Experience Hendrix's mark; vacated the permanent injunction and remanded so the district court could revise the language at issue; reversed the Rule 50(b)(3) decision to strike most of the jury's award of damages under both the Lanham Act and the WPRA; affirmed the district court's order granting a new trial on damages under both statutes; remanded for a new trial on such damages; vacated the district court's award of attorney's fees under the WCPA; and remanded the fee request for further proceedings. View "Experience Hendrix v. HendrixLicensing.com" on Justia Law

Swatch is the owner of three U.S. registrations for the mark SWATCH and for materials bearing that mark. Beehive produces and sells watch bands and faces under the mark SWAP. On appeal, Swatch challenged the district court's denial of its opposition to Beehive's trademark application and dismissal of its related claims for federal, state, and common law trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. The district court held that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB) determinations were supported by substantial evidence; found facts based on evidence not presented to the TTAB under its authority under 15 U.S.C. 1071(b)(3); concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks and likelihood that SWAP would dilute SWATCH; dismissed Swatch's infringement and unfair competition claims as a matter of law; and concluded that Beehive's mark was registrable because it was not merely descriptive. The court concluded that the district court properly reviewed Swatch's dilution-by-blurring claim entirely de novo; the district court also decided Swatch's trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, which were not before the TTAB, de novo; and, although the district court stated that it would apply an impermissible hybrid review to its likelihood of confusion and strength-of-the-mark analyses, there were more than sufficient facts recited in its opinion to support its findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC" on Justia Law

Hokto USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hokuto Co., Ltd., filed suit against Concord Farms for violating its rights to marks under which it markets its Certified Organic Mushrooms, which are produced in the United States. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hokto USA and Hokuto Japan on all claims and entered a permanent injunction against Concord Farms. Determining that this was a classic gray-market case, the court concluded that, because Concord Farms offered no other evidence that its imported mushrooms were not "materially different" from Hokto USA's mushrooms, the district court correctly concluded that they were not genuine Hokto USA goods; the district court correctly concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Concord Farms's importation of Hokuto Japan mushrooms was likely to confuse consumers; and the district court did not err in concluding that Hokuto Japan did not engage in naked licensing where, given the close working relationship, Hokuto Japan was familiar with and reasonably relied upon Hokto USA's efforts to control the quality of the mushrooms it distributed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of Hokto USA's and Hokuto Japan's motion for summary judgment and affirmed the permanent injunction, denying Concord Farms's motion for summary judgment. View "Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

Petronas is a major oil and gas company located in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and GoDaddy is the world's largest domain name registrar. After a third party registered the domain names "petronastower.net" and "petronastowers.net" and then used GoDaddy's domain name forwarding service to direct the disputed domain names to an adult entertainment web site, Petronas filed suit against GoDaddy alleging contributory cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of GoDaddy. The court affirmed, holding that the Act did not include a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting because: (1) the plain text of the Act did not apply to the conduct that would be actionable under such a theory; (2) Congress did not intend to implicitly include common law doctrines applicable to trademark infringement because the Act created a new cause of action that was distinct from traditional trademark remedies; and (3) allowing suits against registrars for contributory cybersquatting would not advance the goals of the statute. View "Petronas v. GoDaddy.com" on Justia Law

Louis Vuitton filed a federal trademark infringement suit against defendant for operating websites that were selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton bags. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him. The court concluded that, under the unrebutted allegations and testimony, the district court in Florida did not violate the Due Process Clause by exercising personal jurisdiction over defendant for Louis Vuitton's trademark infringement claims. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment because the statutory and federal constitutional personal jurisdiction requirements were satisfied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri" on Justia Law