Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

FIU filed suit against FNU for infringement of FIU’s trademarks, asserting six claims for relief: (1) federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114; (2) federal unfair competition, also under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); (3) Florida trademark dilution and injury to business reputation, Fla. Stat. 495.151; (4) Florida trademark infringement, Fla. Stat. 495.131; (5) Florida common law trademark infringement and unfair competition; and (6) cancellation of State of Florida trademark registration, Fla. Stat. 495.101. The district court entered final judgment in favor of FNU and FIU timely appealed. The court concluded that it was more accurate and better to view the district court’s decision in this case as the entry of judgment after conducting a bench trial. The court affirmed the district court's denial of FIU’s federal trademark claim where the district court reasonably concluded that FNU’s adoption of its new name and acronym did not and would not likely cause consumer confusion; FIU's federal unfair competition claim and false association theory of liability fail; the court affirmed the district court’s denial of its dilution claim for the same reasons as the likelihood of confusion claim; and the court affirmed the district court's denial of the Florida trademark infringement, common law infringement, and unfair competition claim as well. View "FIU v. FNU" on Justia Law

The mark “Crazy Horse” has been associated with adult entertainment since the 1950's. In this appeal, at issue is whether Russell Road’s use of the mark “Crazy Horse III” for its Las Vegas strip club infringes defendants Frank Spencer and Crazy Horse Consulting’s rights to the trademark “Crazy Horse.” The district court granted summary judgment to Russell Road. The court agreed with the district court that Russell Road has the right to use the mark because it is the assignee of a valid trademark co-existence agreement entered into with the former owner of the registered Crazy Horse mark. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Russell Road Food & Beverage v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Slep-Tone has filed more than 150 suits under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051, challenging the unauthorized copying and performance of its commercial karaoke files. In addition to the registered Sound Choice trademark, Slep-Tone claims ownership of distinctive trade dress, consisting of typeface, style, and visual arrangement of the song lyrics displayed in the graphic component of the accompaniment tracks; a display version of the Sound Choice mark; and the style of entry cues that are displayed to signal when singers should begin to sing. Slep-Tone alleges that it has used this trade dress for decades and that it is sufficiently recognizable to enable customers to distinguish a Slep-Tone track from a track produced by a competitor. The pub operators own hard drives containing allegedly illegitimate “bootleg” copies of Slep-Tone tracks and, allegedly, are improperly “passing off” the copies as genuine Slep-Tone tracks. The district court dismissed claims of trademark infringement, reasoning that the complaint did not plausibly suggest that the unauthorized use of Slep-Tone’s trademark and trade dress is likely to cause confusion among customers as to the source of any tangible good containing the tracks, a prerequisite to relief under either cited section of the Lanham Act. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Slep-Tone’s real complaint concerns theft, piracy, and violation of Slep-Tone’s media policy rather than trademark infringement. View "Phoenix Ent. Partners, LLC v. Rumsey" on Justia Law

JL Beverage filed suit against Jim Beam, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition. The district court granted summary judgment for Jim Beam. In its summary judgment ruling, the district court used the standard applicable to preliminary injunctions instead of the standard for summary judgment rulings. Balancing the Sleekcraft factors as a whole, the court concluded that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the likelihood of consumer confusion. In this case, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that: the JLV Mark has conceptual strength because the Mark’s salient feature, the color-coordinated lips, requires consumers to use their imagination to connect the color to the vodka flavor; the Lips Mark has conceptual strength because the lips have no commonly understood connection to the vodka product; Johnny Love Vodka does or does not have commercial strength (because a finding of either would support one of JL Beverage’s theories of confusion–reverse or forward); Johnny Love and Pucker Vodka are related flavored-liquor products sold to the same customers and distributors; the products are similar given their use of color-coordinated, puckered human lips as the focal point of their bottle designs; consumers purchasing the vodka products are not likely to exercise a high degree of care in distinguishing between the two; and Jim Beam was aware of JL Beverage’s trademarks prior to rolling out its Pucker Vodka line. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "JL Beverage v. Jim Beam Brands" on Justia Law

Georgallis applied to the Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark MAYARI in standard characters for use on wine in International Class 33. Oakville opposed the registration, alleging that Georgallis’s mark would likely cause confusion with Oakville’s previously registered and used mark MAYA in equivalent-to-standard characters, also for use on wine in International Class 33. After considering: similarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; similarity of the goods; similarity of trade channels; conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made; fame of the prior mark; similar marks in use on similar goods; absence of actual confusion; right to exclude others from use; extent of potential confusion; and federal wine labelling requirements, the Board found that factors two, three, and four favored a finding of likelihood of confusion, that the first factor favored a finding of no likelihood of confusion, while the other factors were neutral. The Board found the goods to be “identical,” despite “a substantial difference in price” and other “differences in the specific nature of the wines,” but found that, overall, “the marks create significantly different commercial impressions” and dismissed Oakville’s opposition. The Federal Circuit affirmed; substantial evidence supported the finding of dissimilarity. View "Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc v. Georgallis Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

After the Hatch Chile Company sought to trademark the term “Hatch” for its exclusive use, a chile producing rival, El Encanto, objected. El Encanto argued before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB," a division of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)), El Encanto argued that “Hatch” can’t be trademarked both because it refers to a place and because Hatch Chile used the term in a misleading manner. To prove its case of deception, El Encanto sought to show that Hatch Chile’s products regularly include chiles that weren't even from the Hatch Valley. El Encanto sought documents from Hatch Chile's packers and suppliers over where the Hatch peppers came from. Hatch Chile responded with a motion for a protective order; the packer, Mizkan Americas, Inc., moved to quash El Encanto's subpoena. Hatch Chile and Mizkan argued that before documents could be subpoenaed, a deposition had to be held. Because El Encanto's subpoena failed to seek a deposition, Hatch Chile argued the order had to be quashed. El Encanto replied that it didn’t want to waste everyone’s time with a deposition: documents would suffice to answer its pretty simple question. The district court agreed and granted Mizkan's motion to quash. El Encanto appealed. The Tenth Circuit reversed: "consistent with any of the various statutory interpretations and regulations cited to us, a party to a TTAB proceeding can obtain nonparty documents without wasting everyone’s time and money with a deposition no one really wants." View "El Encanto, Inc. v. Hatch Chile Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, and other claims on the basis that defendant's trademark logo was confusingly similar to plaintiff's trademark. The district court granted permanent injunctive relief, prohibiting defendant from using its marks within plaintiff’s geographic service area (Guthrie Service Area), but held that defendant may continue to use its marks everywhere outside the Guthrie Service Area, as well as without restriction in Internet transmissions, on defendant’s websites and on social media. The court agreed with the district court’s liability determination that there is a likelihood of confusion between plaintiff’s and defendant’s trademarks. The court concluded, however, that, in restricting the scope of the injunction, the district court misapplied the law, and failed to adequately protect the interests of plaintiff and the public from likely confusion. The court concluded that it is correct that a senior user must prove a probability of confusion in order to win an injunction. But it does not follow that the injunction may extend only into areas for which the senior user has shown probability of confusion. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and expended the scope of the injunction, remanding for further consideration. View "Guthrie Healthcare Sys. v. ContextMedia, Inc." on Justia Law

ISC filed suit against SU and Sondra Schneider, alleging that SU's use of ISC's certification mark violated the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., and constituted infringement under 15 U.S.C. 1114, false designation of origin and false advertising under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), and that SU’s use of the mark constituted unfair competition under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42–110a et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court held that nominative fair use is not an affirmative defense to a claim of infringement under the Lanham Act. In cases involving nominative use, in addition to considering the Polaroid factors, courts are to consider (1) whether the use of the plaintiff’s mark is necessary to describe both the plaintiff’s product or service and the defendant’s product or service, that is, whether the product or service is not readily identifiable without use of the mark; (2) whether the defendant uses only so much of the plaintiff’s mark as is necessary to identify the product or service; and whether the defendant did anything that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the plaintiff holder, that is, whether the defendant’s conduct or language reflects the true or accurate relationship between plaintiff’s and defendant’s products or services. When considering these factors, courts must be mindful of the different types of confusion relevant to infringement claims. Because the district court failed to consider the Polaroid factors and because its consideration of the relevant nominative fair use factors was based on incorrect assumptions, the court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the infringement claims. The court vacated the grant of summary judgment as to the false designation of origin and false advertising claims, and the CUTPA claims. The court affirmed as to the dilution claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Int'l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium, Inc. v. Security Univ., LLC" on Justia Law

After Ashley Reed sold counterfeit Fendi goods to Burlington and others, Fendi filed suit against Ashley Reed. USF&G, Ashley Reed's insurer, filed suit against Fendi and Ashley Reed, seeking a declaration that it owed no duty under the Policies to indemnify Ashley Reed with respect to the first underlying action. Fendi asserted a counterclaim seeking indemnification for the judgment entered against Ashley Reed in the First Action.  Burlington was given permission to intervene to seek indemnification under the Policies for the judgment entered against Ashley Reed in the second underlying action. The court agreed with the district court's holding that the basis of Ashley Reedʹs liability ʺwas the sale - not the advertising - of counterfeit Fendi products,ʺ and therefore there was no basis for indemnification under the Policies. Because the losses were not the result of an advertising injury, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Fendi Adele S.R.L." on Justia Law

Apotex filed suit alleging that Acorda filed a sham citizen petition with the FDA to hinder approval of Apotex's competing formulation of a drug for treating spasticity, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, and that Acorda violated the Lanham Act's, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1), proscription on false advertising. The district court ruled that the simultaneous approval by the FDA of Apotex’s drug application and its denial of Acorda’s citizen petition was by itself insufficient to support a Sherman Act claim. The district court then granted summary judgment and dismissed all of Apotex’s false advertising claims on the grounds that (with the exception of one graph) no representation was literally false or likely to mislead consumers. In regard to the graph, Apotex failed to show that the false depiction would meaningfully impact consumers’ purchasing decisions. The court concluded that, although precedent supports an inference that a citizen petition is an anticompetitive weapon if it attacks a rival drug application and is denied the same day that the application is approved, that inference has been undercut by recent FDA guidance.  As to false advertising, the court agreed with the district court that no reasonable jury could have found that Acorda made literally false or misleading representations in its advertisements, with the exception of a single representation that Apotex has failed to show affected decisions to purchase. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Apotex Inc. v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc." on Justia Law