Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

Christian Louboutin, a fashion designer best known for his use of red lacquer on the outsole of the shoes he designs, appealed the district court's order denying a motion for preliminary injunction against alleged trademark infringement by Yves Saint Laurent (YSL). The court concluded that the district court's conclusion that a single color could never serve as a trademark in the fashion industry was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., and that the district court therefore erred by resting its denial of Louboutin's preliminary injunction motion on that ground. The court further concluded that Louboutin's trademark, consisting of a red, lacquered outsole on a high fashion woman's shoe, has acquired limited "secondary meaning" as a distinctive symbol that identified the Louboutin brand. Pursuant to Section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1119, the court limited the trademark to uses in which the red outsole contrasted with the color of the remainder of the shoe. Because Louboutin sought to enjoin YSL from using a red sole as part of a monochrome red shoe, the court affirmed in part the order of the district court insofar as it declined to enjoin the use of the red lacquered outsoles in all situations. However, the court reversed in part the order of the district court insofar as it purported to deny trademark protection to Louboutin's use of contrasting red lacquered outsoles. View "Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Inc." on Justia Law

Skydive Arizona sued SKYRIDE for false advertising, trademark infringement, and cybersquatting. SKYRIDE subsequently appealed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment, the jury's actual damages and profits awards, and the district court's damages enhancement. Skydive Arizona cross-appealed the district court's limitation of the permanent injunction to Skydive Arizona, and sought a nationwide injunction against SKYRIDE. The court reversed with regard to the district court's doubling of actual damages, and reinstated the jury's original actual damages award for false advertising, and for trademark infringement. The court affirmed the district court on all other claims. Thus, as modified in actual damages for false advertising, $2.5 million in actual damages for trademark infringement, $2,500,004 in lost profits for trademark infringement, and $600,000 in statutory damages for cybersquatting. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and modified in part.View "Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrochi, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this action alleging trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 114(1); federal unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); unfair competition and deceptive trade practices under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), N.C.Gen. Stat. 75-1.1, thereby challenging the use of its federally-registered AGRI-NET trademark by defendants. Plaintiff appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants on its affirmative defense of laches. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining that defendants established its defense as a matter of law, and, separately, in failing to consider whether laches barred plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.View "Ray Communications, Inc. v. Clear Channel Comm., Inc., et al." on Justia Law

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed an examining attorney's refusal to register the trademark XCEED, in standard character form, for agricultural seed, citing the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(d). A previously-registered word and design mark for agricultural seeds consisted of the characters X-Seed in stylized form. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding substantial evidence that the XCEED mark would likely cause confusion with the X-Seed mark. View "In re Viterra" on Justia Law

DuoProSS and Inviro sell medical syringes designed to prevent accidental needle sticks. A person using an Inviro syringe: rotates the plunger; pulls the plunger back, drawing the needle into the syringe barrel; and snaps off the plunger, sealing the needle inside. Inviro owns the two trademarks at issue: the “SNAP! design mark,” for use with “ medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection syringes” and the “SNAP SIMPLY SAFER mark,” for use with “cannulae; medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection needles; medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection syringes.” Inviro petitioned to cancel a trademark registration owned by DuoProSS for the design mark BAKSNAP, for use with a “safety syringe for medical use.” DuoProSS counterclaimed for cancellation of several Inviro registrations, including the marks at issue. Inviro withdrew its petition and agreed to voluntarily surrender one registration. The Board concluded that other registrations for the SNAP mark in typed format were merely descriptive and ordered cancellation, but declined to cancel the SNAP! design mark and the SNAP SIMPLY SAFER word mark. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board failed to consider one of the marks as a whole, unduly focusing on one portion (!) and erroneously concluded that puffing could render the marks more than descriptive.View "Duopross Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med.Devices, Ltd." on Justia Law

In 1998, the U.S.PTO issued Registration 334 to WJ for the mark LENS in connection with “computer software featuring programs used for electronic ordering of contact lenses in the field of ophthalmology, optometry and opticianry.” In 2001, Lens.com, an online retailer of contact lenses applied for the mark LENS in connection with “retail store services featuring contact eyewear products rendered via a global computer network.” The PTO cited the 334 Registration as a bar based on likelihood of consumer confusion and refused registration of the mark as merely descriptive of services. In 2002, WJ assigned the registration to Lens.com, which withdrew its cancellation petition under a settlement agreement and obtained the 334 Registration for the mark LENS in connection with “computer software featuring programs used for electronic ordering of contact lenses in the field of ophthalmology, optometry and opticianry.” In 2008, 1-800 Contacts filed Cancellation 925 alleging that Lens.com abandoned or fraudulently obtained the mark LENS because Lens.com never sold or otherwise engaged in the trade of computer software. The Board granted summary judgment of abandonment on the ground that the software is merely incidental to sale of contact lenses, and is not a “good in trade,” solicited or purchased in the market for its intrinsic value.’” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc." on Justia Law

Nestle’s BEGGIN’ STRIPS registered mark for pet treats has been in continuous use since 1988 and has been registered since 1989. Midwestern manufactures and sells pet treats and filed an intent-to-use application with the Patent and Trademark Office, seeking to register the mark WAGGIN’ STRIPS for pet food and edible pet treats. Nestle opposed registration, arguing likelihood of confusion between the two marks. The district court ruled in favor of Nestle, finding likelihood of confusion. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court properly admitted evidence submitted by Nestle. View "Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A." on Justia Law

This case arose from a trademark infringement suit involving the sale of counterfeit versions of defendant's hoisin sauce. The district court subsequently imposed sanctions in fees and costs pursuant to FRCP 11 against plaintiffs and their attorneys in favor of defendant. The attorneys appealed, contending that the district court erred in its application of Rule 11. Defendant cross-appealed, contending that the district should have awarded substantially more in fees and costs and moved to sanction the attorneys for filing a purportedly frivolous appeal. The court held that the safe harbor requirement under Rule 11 was satisfied in these circumstances; the attorneys have failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the action was frivolous; nor have the attorneys shown that the district court abused its discretion in deciding to impose monetary sanctions. The court rejected defendant's arguments on cross appeal and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Star Mark Mgmt., Inc. v. Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd." on Justia Law

This case arose when the University told Daniel A. Moore, an artist who painted famous football scenes involving the University since 1979, that he would need permission to depict the University's uniforms because they were trademarks. Moore contended that he did not need permission because the uniforms were being used realistically to portray historic events. The parties could not reach a resolution and the University subsequently sued Moore for breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. The court held that, as evidenced by the parties' course of conduct, Moore's depiction of the University's uniforms in his unlicensed paintings, prints, and calendars was not prohibited by the prior licensing agreements. Additionally, the paintings, prints, and calendars did not violate the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), because these artistically expressive objects were protected by the First Amendment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment by the district court with respect to the paintings and prints, and reversed with respect to the prints as replicated on calendars. With respect to the licensing agreements' coverage of the mugs and other "mundane products," the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment because disputed issues of fact remained. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "University of Ala. Bd of Trustees v. New Life, Inc" on Justia Law

Alpha sued defendants, foreign corporations, alleging that defendants conspired to steal its tire blueprints, produce infringing tires, and sell them to entities that had formerly purchased products from Alpha. A jury found in favor of Alpha on all claims and the district court upheld the damages award against defendants' post-trial challenges. Defendants subsequently appealed, contesting the verdict and the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. The court initially held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendants. The court affirmed the district court's judgment that defendants were liable to Alpha under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and for conversion under Virginia law, but the court dismissed the remaining theories of liability submitted to the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the jury's damages award. Finally, the court vacated the district court's award of attorneys' fees. View "Tire Engineering and Distribution, LLC. v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co." on Justia Law