Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

Michael Shwartz and his family owned and operated the Camellia Grill restaurant, which was originally located on Carrollton Avenue in New Orleans. Shwartz formed and wholly-owned CGH. After Hurricane Katrina, Shwartz agreed to sell the business to Hicham Khodr. Shwartz, Camellia Grill, Inc., and CGH were collectively the “Seller” in the transaction, and Uptown Grill was the “Purchaser.” In this appeal, the parties dispute the ownership of the trademarks associated with Camellia Grill. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to Uptown Grill, determining that it is the owner of all the Camellia Grill trademarks. Determining that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, the court concluded that Uptown Grill may not be punished for failing to assert the Bill of Sale in prior litigation, and laches is inapplicable. On the merits, the court concluded that the Bill of Sale clearly and unambiguously transfers to Uptown Grill the trademarks within or upon the Carrollton Avenue location. While CGH may be bound by a mis-drafted Bill of Sale, the district court must consider whether Uptown Grill should be bound by its pleadings, representations in court, and practice with respect to a License Agreement for which its affiliate, Grill Holdings, paid a million dollars. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings to determine the appropriateness of any further relief. View "Uptown Grill, LLC v. Shwartz" on Justia Law

Halo, a Hong Kong company that designs and sells high-end modern furniture, owns two U.S. design patents, 13 U.S. copyrights, and one U.S. common law trademark, all relating to its furniture designs. Halo’s common law trademark, ODEON, is used in association with at least four of its designs. Halo sells its furniture in the U.S., including through its own retail stores. Comptoir, a Canadian corporation, also designs and markets high-end furniture that is manufactured in China, Vietnam, and India. Comptoir’s furniture is imported and sold to U.S. consumers directly at furniture shows and through distributors, including in Illinois. Halo sued, alleging infringement and violation of Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive business practices statutes. The district court dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, finding that the balance of interests favored Canada and that Canada, where the defendants reside, was an adequate forum. The Federal Circuit reversed. The policies underlying U.S. copyright, patent, and trademark laws would be defeated if a domestic forum to adjudicate the rights they convey was denied without a sufficient showing of the adequacy of the alternative foreign jurisdiction; the Federal Court of Canada would not provide any “potential avenue for redress for the subject matter” of Halo’s dispute. View "Halo Creative & Design, Ltd. v. Comptoir des Indes Inc." on Justia Law

JBLU does business as C’est Toi Jeans USA. In 2010, JBLU imported jeans manufactured in China, embroidered with “C’est Toi Jeans USA,” “CT Jeans USA,” or “C’est Toi Jeans Los Angeles” in various fonts. JBLU filed trademark applications for “C’est Toi Jeans USA” and “CT Jeans USA” on October 8, 2010, stating that the marks had been used in commerce since 2005. Customs inspected the jeans and found violation of the Tariff Act, which requires that imported articles be marked with their country of origin, 19 U.S.C. 1304(a); JBLU’s jeans were marked with “USA” and “Los Angeles,” but small-font “Made in China” labels were not in close proximity to and of at least the same size as “USA” and “Los Angeles.” Customs applied more lenient requirements to the jeans that were marked with “C’est Toi Jeans USA” or “CT Jeans USA” and were imported after JBLU filed its trademark applications. The Trade Court granted the government summary judgment. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the more-lenient requirements apply to unregistered, as well as registered, trademarks. Regulations in the same chapter as 19 C.F.R. 134.47 and regulations in a different chapter but the same title use the word “trademark” to include registered and unregistered trademarks. View "JBLU, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Hugunin first sold fishing tackle in Land O’ Lakes, Wisconsin, in 1997. Hugunin’s manufacturing enterprise now sells fishing tackle to retailers in several states. In 2000 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office registered LAND O LAKES as the trademark of his fishing tackle. A large agricultural cooperative named Land O’ Lakes is based in Minnesota and sells dairy products throughout the United States. It has used LAND O LAKES trademark since the 1920s. In 1997 the dairy company became the official dairy sponsor of a sport-fishing tournament and began advertising its products in fishing magazines. Three years later, having learned that Hugunin had registered LAND O LAKES as a trademark, the dairy company wrote him that he was infringing its trademark. He refused either to apply for a license or to give up the trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding was suspended pending the outcome of litigation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of Hugunin’s suit, stating “It’s hard to believe that a giant dairy company wants to destroy or annex Hugunin’s tiny fishing-tackle business, or that Hugunin’s tackle sales are being kept down by Land O’ Lakes’ having an identical trademark.” View "Hugunin v. Land O'Lakes, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, twenty-three professional football players, filed a putative class action against the NFL, claiming that films produced by NFL-affiliate NFL Films violated the players’ rights under the right-of-publicity laws of various states as well as their rights under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125. Twenty plaintiffs settled, but appellants elected to opt out of the settlement and pursued individual right-of-publicity and Lanham Act claims. The district court granted summary judgment for the NFL. Applying the three Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., factors, the court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the films are expressive, rather than commercial, speech and that the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 301(a), therefore preempts appellants’ claims. The court also concluded that appellants' claim of false endorsement under the Lanham Act fails as a matter of law because appellants provide no evidence that the films contain misleading or false statements regarding their current endorsement of the NFL. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dryer v. National Football League" on Justia Law

A Corp., a Massachusetts plumbing corporation and franchisor, brought a trademark infringement action against All American Plumbing, Inc., an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business in Arizona, alleging that All American was improperly using A Corp.’s “Rooter Man” mark, or one confusingly similar, to advertise its plumbing business on its website. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that A Corp. failed to meet its burden to establish either general or specific jurisdiction. A Corp. appealed, challenging the district court’s conclusion as to the exercise of specific jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that A Corp.’s argument for specific jurisdiction failed. View "A Corp. v. All American Plumbing, Inc." on Justia Law

Hampton's contracts with Window World, allowed Hampton to use WW trademarks. WW alerted Hampton that their dealings were subject to the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act, and that Hampton had 35 days to elect between rescinding the contracts and signing a franchise agreement. Hampton did neither, but filed suit, alleging violation of the Act and fraud. WW sued under the Lanham Act (Suit 2). Hampton returned a waiver of service, but did not hire a lawyer for Suit 2. Hampton dismissed Suit 1, without prejudice, but did not respond to Suit 2. WW successfully moved for default, then for default judgment. All motions and notices were in the electronic filing system, but Hampton was not using that system and did not respond. The court entered a default judgment for $100,000 in damages and costs, and an injunction. Hampton continued calling his business Window World, but did not make payments or pay the judgment. Hampton closed the business, then filed Suit 3, presenting the same claims as Suit 1, and sought to reopen Suit 2 and set aside the judgment. The judge concluded that Hampton’s failure to follow the electronic filings, plus his professed belief that Suits 1 and 2 had been dismissed together, amounted to excusable neglect, but conditioned reopening of Suit 2 on payment of $33,000. Hampton did not pay. The court reinstated the default judgment. Suit 3 was dismissed; Hampton’s claims in Suit 3 were compulsory counterclaims in Suit 2. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. If the suits are separate, claim preclusion blocks Hampton’s current claims; if they are consolidated, law of the case leads to the same outcome. View "Window World of Chicagoland v. Window World, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1969, the Flynt brothers opened “Hustler Club” nightclub, in Cincinnati. Larry later created the Hustler conglomerate, producing sexually explicit magazines. Jimmy opened his retail store, Hustler Cincinnati, in 2000, using the “HUSTLER” trademark (owned by Larry’s corporation) and began paying licensing in 2004. Jimmy and Larry had a falling out. Larry's Hustler fired Jimmy in 2009. Jimmy’s Hustler stopped paying fees, but continued to use the mark. Larry sued. The court enjoined Jimmy from “using in commerce any HUSTLER trademark” and “using any trademark or any variation thereof owned by” Larry or his corporations. Later, Larry complained that Jimmy had opened a new store in Florence, Kentucky, “FLYNT Sexy Gifts.” The court denied the contempt motion because the injunction did not directly prohibit Jimmy’s conduct. but modified the injunction, reasoning that Jimmy’s use of “FLYNT Sexy Gifts” was “likely to cause confusion with the LARRY FLYNT trademark.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed a modification that prohibits Jimmy from “[u]sing the name ‘Flynt’ in connection with the sale, promotion or advertising of adult entertainment products or services unless it is accompanied by the first name ‘Jimmy’ in the same font size, color, and style and on the same background color,” and required Jimmy, when using the name “Flynt” anywhere except on “store signage,” to incorporate “a conspicuous disclaimer stating that the goods or services are not ‘sponsored, endorsed by, or affiliated with Larry Flynt or Hustler, or any business enterprise owned or controlled by Larry Flynt.’” View "LFP IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a trademark infringement suit against defendants. The district court entered a default judgment against defendants as sanction for discovery abuses and then proceeded to enter default judgment against defendant Steven West. The court concluded that the district court and the magistrate judge did not abuse their discretion in declining to delay a hearing for damages based on West's medical issues where they were clearly skeptical of West's credibility based on their experience with him during the discovery process. The court rejected West's argument that the district court erred by not deducting overhead and operating costs from its calculation of defendants’ profits. Accordingly, because the court found no error in the district court's rulings, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. v. West" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from rival claims to the “Stolichnaya” trademarks. FTE and Cristall alleged that defendants unlawfully misappropriated and commercially exploited the Stolichnaya trademarks related to the sale of vodka and other spirits in the United States. Control over the marks in the United States is currently exercised by defendants as successors in interest to a Soviet state enterprise. In a prior suit, FTE brought claims against SPI under section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, and the court dismissed the claims on the grounds that the Russian Federation itself retained too great an interest in the marks for FTE to qualify as an "assign" with standing to sue. FTE's non-section 32(1) claims were either dismissed or dropped during the course of that litigation. At issue principally in this appeal is whether FTE, an agency of the Russian Federation, has been endowed by that government with rights and powers that give it standing to pursue claims under section 32(1) of the Lanham Act. The court concluded that the district court erred in determining whether FTE’s asserted basis for standing was valid under Russian law. However, the court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed all of FTE's other claims as barred by both res judicata and laches. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int’l B.V." on Justia Law