Justia Trademark Opinion Summaries

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

Marshak appealed the district court's preliminary injunction for HRE enjoining Marshak from using the "The Platters" mark in connection with any vocal group with narrow exceptions. At issue was whether the likelihood of irreparable harm must be established - rather than presumed, as under prior Ninth Circuit precedent - by a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief in the trademark context. Following eBay v. MarcExchange and Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement case must establish irreparable harm. The court concluded that HRE was not foreclosed from bringing the underlying suit where prior New York actions (Marshak I and Marshak II) did not have res judicata effect; HRE's trademark infringement claim and request for preliminary injunction was not precluded by the doctrine of laches; the record supported the district court's determination that HRE did not abandon "The Platters" mark; but the fact that the district curt made no factual findings that would support a likelihood of establishing irreparable harm, led the court to reverse the preliminary injunction and to remand to the district court. View "HRE v. Florida Entertainment Mgmt." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are the writer and publisher of a book entitled "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to Be President." A journalist published an article on Esquire's Political Blog entitled "BREAKING: Jerome Corsi's Birther Book Pulled from Shelves!" Soon after the blog was published, Esquire published an update on the blog stating that "for those who didn't figure it out," the article was "satire." Plaintiffs filed suit against Esquire for, inter alia, violation of the D.C. Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Anti-SLAPP) Act, D.C. Code 16-5501 et seq., and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A) and (B). The court held that the complaint was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim because the blog post was fully protected political satire and the update and the journalist's statements were protected opinion. Further, the complaint failed to state a claim for violation of the Lanham Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Farah, et al. v. Esquire Magazine, et al." on Justia Law

HFI filed suit against the Bank alleging trademark infringement and related claims, contending that the Bank's use of its "Hana Bank" mark infringed HFI's "Hana Financial" mark because its use of the word "Hana" in connection with financial services would likely cause confusion. A party claiming trademark ownership must establish priority and one of the ways that a party could establish priority was through the constructive use doctrine known as "tacking." Tacking required a highly fact-sensitive inquiry, and the jury decided the issue after receiving an instruction that correctly conveyed the narrowness of the doctrine. In this instance, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on trademark priority where, viewing the marks in context and in their entirety, the ordinary purchasers could perceive them as conveying the same idea or meaning or evoking the same mental reaction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of HFI's motion for judgment as a matter of law on trademark priority and upheld the jury's verdict. View "Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, et al." on Justia Law