Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

Tam, the “front man” for Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, filed the 263 application, seeking to register the mark THE SLANTS for “Entertainment, namely, live performances by a musical band.” Tam attached specimens featuring the band name set against Asian motifs. The examining attorney found the mark disparaging to people of Asian descent under 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) and refused to register it. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed for failure to file a brief and the application was deemed abandoned. Tam then filed the 044 application, seeking to register the mark THE SLANTS for identical services as in the 263 application. In the 044 application, Tam claims use of the mark since 2006. Specimens attached to the 044 application do not contain Asian motifs. The examining attorney again found the mark THE SLANTS disparaging and declined to register it. The Board affirmed, stating that “it is abundantly clear from the record not only that THE SLANTS . . . would have the ‘likely meaning’ of people of Asian descent but also that such meaning has been so perceived and has prompted significant responses by prospective attendees or hosts of the band’s performances.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In re: Tam" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between two clergymen, each of whom believed himself to be the proper leader of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina. Bishop Charles vonRosenberg brought this action against Bishop Mark Lawrence, alleging Lanham Act violations and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Bishop Lawrence asked the district court to dismiss this federal action for lack of standing or, in the alternative, to abstain and stay this action pending resolution of related state court proceedings. The district court granted the motion to abstain and dismissed the action, concluding that it had broad discretion to decline to grant declaratory relief under the abstention doctrine articulated in Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of Am. and Wilton v. Steven Falls Co. The Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal order, holding (1) Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, which permits a federal court to abstain only in “exceptional” circumstances, properly governed the abstention question in this action; and (2) because the district court did not apply the correct abstention standard, the case is remanded for a determination of whether “exceptional” circumstances are present in this case. View "vonRosenberg v. Lawrence" on Justia Law

TriVita filed trademark application Serial No. 77/658,158 to register the mark NOPALEA on the Principal Register for dietary and nutritional supplements “containing, in whole or in substantial part, nopal juice.” The examiner rejected the application under section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act as “descriptive of a feature of applicant’s goods on the grounds that applicant’s products contain nopal which is derived from an [ex]tract of the nopalea plant.” The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that “nopalea plant” is not a term used in the food industry, and that the term is not descriptive because TriVita’s products contain extracts from the Opunti genus of nopal cactus, not the Nopalea genus. Various websites show Nopalea as the name of a genus of cactus used in food and supplements. Some of TriVita’s affiliates explicitly state on their website that TriVita’s products were derived from the Nopalea cactus. Consumers may well assume, as do some of TriVita’s affiliates, that, as a characteristic of nopal juice, TriVita’s goods derive from genus nopalea. View "In re: Trivita, Inc." on Justia Law

Haydel Enterprises appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Nola Spice Designs and Raquel Duarte on claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, and unfair trade practices. Haydel Enterprises owns Haydel’s Bakery in New Orleans, which makes and sells pastries and cakes, including a popular king cake. In 2008, Haydel commissioned an artist to design a mascot, which was named “Mardi Gras Bead Dog.” On October 13, 2009, and December 1, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued two trademark registrations to Haydel for, respectively, the phrase “MARDI GRAS BEAD DOG” and its bead dog design. Both registrations cover king cake pastries, jewelry, and clothing. Haydel sold these items in its New Orleans store, online, and through a licensee. In September 2012, Haydel obtained a certificate of copyright registration for its work titled “Bead Dog” in “photograph(s), jewelry design, 2-D artwork, sculpture.” In May 2012, Raquel Duarte formed Nola Spice Designs, which sold jewelry and accessories, including necklaces and earrings featuring bead dog trinkets. Haydel learned of Duarte’s bead dogs through Haydel’s customers. In August 2012, Haydel sent Nola Spice Designs a letter noting Haydel’s trademark and copyright in “the bead dog design,” and demanding, inter alia, that Nola Spice Designs “remove from [its] website all display, mention of or reference to the bead dog design,” and “cease any and all promotion, sale, and/or use” of materials incorporating the bead dog design. In October 2012, Nola Spice Designs filed a complaint against Haydel seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that Nola Spice Designs’s activities do not violate the Lanham Act or any other trademark law; (2) the cancellation of Haydel’s trademarks; and (3) damages for unfair trade practices under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (“LUTPA”). Haydel asserted counterclaims against Nola Spice Designs and filed a third-party complaint against Duarte, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Nola Spice on its claim for a declaratory judgment that it was not infringing Haydel’s trademarks, and the court cancelled those trademarks as unprotectable, but it denied Nola Spice’s motion for summary judgment on its LUTPA claims. The district court also granted summary judgment to Nola Spice on Haydel’s claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, and unfair trade practices. Haydel timely appealed the district court’s order. Nola Spice did not appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of its LUTPA claim. Upon review, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Nola Spice on its claim for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of Haydel’s trademarks, and affirmed the district court’s cancellation of those trademarks. The Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Nola Spice on Haydel’s claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act; trademark dilution under Louisiana law; copyright infringement under the Copyright Act; and unfair trade practices under LUTPA. View "Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C., et al v. Haydel Enterp" on Justia Law

Slep-Tone Entertainment sued Karaoke Kandy and Polidori under federal and state law for unlawfully selling hard drives bearing Slep-Tone’s registered trademarks without authorization. After trial, the jury answered a single interrogatory finding that the defendants had not infringed Slep-Tone’s trademarks. The district court entered judgment in the defendants’ favor. The Sixth Circuit stayed a separate appeal and remanded to the district court because Slep-Tone’s timely post-judgment motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 was pending before the district court. In a separate appeal, the Sixth Circuit remanded for further proceedings regarding defendants’ a motion for attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) based on the judgment in their favor. The motion was not untimely; the FRCP 52 motion remained pending. The court must determine whether it is necessary to reassess if this case qualifies as “extraordinary.” View "Slep-Tone Entm't Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between two clergymen, each of whom believed himself to be the proper leader of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina. Bishop Charles vonRosenberg brought this action against Bishop Mark Lawrence, alleging Lanham Act violations and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Bishop Lawrence asked the district court to abstain and stay this action pending resolution of related state court proceedings. The district court granted the motion to abstain and stayed the action, concluding that it had broad discretion to decline to grant declaratory relief under the abstention doctrine articulated in Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of Am. and Wilton v. Steven Falls Co. The Fourth Circuit vacated the stay order, holding (1) Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, which permits a federal court to abstain only in “exceptional” circumstances, properly governed the abstention question in this action; and (2) because the district court did not apply the correct abstention standard, the case is remanded for a determination of whether “exceptional” circumstances are present in this case. View "vonRosenberg v. Lawrence" on Justia Law

Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP commenced three separate actions against von Drehle Corporation or its distributors, alleging contributory trademark infringement. In the instant action, a jury found in favor of Georgia-Pacific and awarded Georgia-Pacific $791,431. The district court entered a permanent, nationwide injunction prohibiting von Drehle from infringing Georgia-Pacific’s trademark rights, trebled the jury’s award, awarded attorneys fees, and awarded prejudgment interest and court costs. In the two parallel actions, the district courts ruled against Georgia-Pacific. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s injunction and award of attorneys fees and reversed its award of treble damages and prejudgment interest, holding (1) the Eighth and Sixth Circuits’ rulings against Georgia-Pacific rendered the district court’s injunction unduly broad, and the district court is instructed to narrow it to cover only the geographical area of the Fourth Circuit; and (2) the district court applied the wrong legal standards for trebling the jury award and for awarding attorneys fees and prejudgment interest. View "Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods. LP v. von Drehle Corp." on Justia Law

Smart Candle sells light-emitting diode flameless candles and commercial lighting systems internationally. Excell sued under the LanhamAct alleging that Smart Candle’s use of the trade name and trademark “Smart Candle” infringed rights that Excell had over use of that name and trademark. Selective insured Smart Candle during the period in which the Excell suit commenced, but disclaimed coverage, based on exclusion any injury “arising out of the infringement of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property rights” that “does not apply to infringement in your ‘advertisement’ of copyright, trade dress or slogan.” Excell won its suit. Selective sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify. Smart Candle counterclaimed breach of contract, arguing that Selective had not conducted “reasonable investigation of Excell’s Claims” including “a review of Smart Candle’s website . . . or any of Smart Candle’s advertising before denying coverage.” The district court granted Selective summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that no reasonable jury would conclude that Excell was suing for slogan infringement and that Selective had no duty to investigate “beyond the four corners of the complaint” to determine whether other facts could trigger Selective’s duty to defend or indemnify. View "Selective Ins. Co. v. Smart Candle, LLC" on Justia Law

Hargis tried to register its trademark for SEALTITE with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. B&B opposed registration, claiming that SEALTITE is too similar to B&B’s SEALTIGHT trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) concluded that SEALTITE should not be registered because of the likelihood of confusion. Hargis did not seek judicial review. Later, in an infringement suit, B&B argued that Hargis was precluded from contesting likelihood of confusion because of the TTAB’s decision. The district court disagreed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. If the other elements of issue preclusion are met, when the usages adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those before a court, issue preclusion should apply. When Congress authorizes agencies to resolve disputes, issue preclusion applies except when a contrary statutory purpose is evident. Neither the Lanham Act’s (15 U.S.C. 1051) text nor its structure rebuts a presumption in favor of preclusive effect. There is no categorical reason why registration decisions can never meet the ordinary elements of issue preclusion. That many registrations will not satisfy those elements does not mean that none will. The same likelihood-of-confusion standard applies to both registration and infringement. The factors that the TTAB and the courts use to assess likelihood of confusion are not fundamentally different; the operative statutory language is essentially the same. Congress’ creation of an elaborate registration scheme confirms that registration decisions can be weighty enough to ground issue preclusion. View "B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

Buckminster Fuller, “Bucky,” a designer, author, and inventor, well known for popularizing the geodesic dome, died in 1983. Beginning around 2009, Maxfield manufactured and distributed products under the Buckyball and related trademarks. According to its press release, Buckyballs, “the world’s best-selling desktoy,” were “inspired and named after famous … inventor, R. Buckminster Fuller.” Buckyballs are round magnets packaged in a cube shape, which can be formed into various shapes. The Big Book of Bucky, which provides instructions, states: Buckyballs were named for Buckminster Fuller. Fuller’s Estate sued, alleging: unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) (Lanham Act); invasion of privacy (appropriation of name and likeness); unauthorized use of name and likeness, Cal. Civil Code 3344.1; and violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code 17200. Alterra had issued an insurance policy to Maxfield, effective June 2010. Alterra agreed to defend under a reservation of rights, then sought a declaration that Alterra’s policy did not provide coverage. The Estate agreed to be bound by the outcome in return for being dismissed. Because of Maxfield’s stipulation to the allegations in the coverage action and acting without leave, the Estate later responded to Alterra’s complaint. The court of appeal affirmed a holding that Alterra had no duty to defend and no duty to indemnify, based on the “intellectual property” exclusion. View "Alterra Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Estate of Buckminster Fuller" on Justia Law