trademark – Page 4 – Attorney Evan Brown

November 17, 2008 Trademarks, Unfair Competition

Results of Internet searches helpful in earthworm trademark case

Cascade Mfg. Sales, Inc. v. Providnet Co. Trust, 2008 WL 4889716 (W.D. Wash. November 12, 2008)

Cascade Manufacturing makes and sells composting bins in which earthworms “enhance and accelerate the composting process.” Cascade owns a federal trademark registration for WORM FACTORY. It sued its competitor Providnet Co. for trademark infringement over Providnet’s use of the mark GUSANITO WORM FACTORY. Cascade moved for a preliminary injunction against Providnet’s use of its “worm factory” mark. The court granted the motion.

One of Providnet’s arguments against the injunction was that “worm factory” is a generic term for the types of products being sold under the respective marks. To refute this contention, Cascade introduced evidence of Internet searches supporting its claim that the products at issue are referred to as “worm bins,” and that “worm factory” refers to Cascade’s particular product. The court found this evidence to be instructive.

Earthworm picture courtesy Flickr user Rick Harris under this Creative Commons license. Redistributed here under the same license.

July 16, 2008 Trademarks

He was a trademark owner, she was a competitor, he would take her to court over keyword advertising.

In a lawsuit filed recently, Plaintiff Rosetta Stone Ltd. claimed that Defendants Rocket Languages Ltd. et al. infringed Rosetta Stone’s trademarks and engaged in unfair competition. The Plaintiff provides foreign language educational software under the registered mark: Rosetta Stone, and is probably most famous for their clever “farmboy supermodel” ads.

Rosetta Stone claims that the Defendants and their affiliates (competitors of Rosetta Stone) use the Rosetta Stone mark as a keyword in Google and Yahoo! targeted / keyword advertising. Thus, Rosetta Stone contends that “when a consumer [searches for a variation of] ‘ROSETTA STONE’, he is confronted with a list of advertisements from Defendants that either directly offer Rocket Languages products or purport to offer information and reviews of various foreign language software products [, and that the Rosetta Stone mark appears] in the header and text of the resulting sponsored links”. Rosetta Stone also alleges that the Defendants have tarnished the Rosetta Stone mark by running advertisements which state, inter alia, “Rosetta Spanish A Scam?” or “Read These Reviews Before Buying Rosetta Spanish!” Rosetta Stone also alleges that “comparison reviews” of the Defendants are biased and fail to disclose their true source. Finally, Rosetta Stone contends that several hyperlinks on affiliate sites appear to link users with Rosetta Stone, but in fact, link users to Defendants products.

Rosetta Stone alleges that if these actions are permitted to continue, significant monetary and trademark goodwill damages will occur. Rosetta Stone is asking the Court to enjoin the Defendants, inter alia, from using the Rosetta Stone mark in its advertising. Additionally, Rosetta Stone seeks a Court Order that the Defendants remove the Rosetta Stone mark from their keyword advertising.

Given several recent rulings, blogged here, the Court may enter an injunction in favor of Rosetta Stone, though this case may present some interesting comparative advertising questions.

June 25, 2008 Evidence

Company’s own website provided evidence of claimed trademark’s genericness

Boston Duck Tours LP v. Super Duck Tours LLC, —F.3d—, 2008 WL 2444480 (1st Cir. June 18, 2008)

Boston Duck Tours has been providing tours of Boston in amphibian vehicles (called “ducks” but spelled DUKWs) since 1993. After a competitor moved into town in 2007 calling itself Super Duck Tours, Boston Duck Tours filed suit for trademark infringement. The district court enjoined Super Duck from using its mark and logo. Super Duck sought review with the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, the court reversed.

It held that the lower court erred in finding that the term “duck tour” was not a generic term outside the protection of trademark law. In reaching this decision, the appellate court reviewed evidence of Boston Duck’s own use of the term in a generic sense, including on its website. For example, a sentence read, “[c]ontrary to local belief, the unique idea of a [d]uck [t]our did not originate in Boston.”

The case should serve as a warning to brand owners to ensure (apart from not selecting a generic term in the first place) that they use their marks in a manner that avoids “genericide”.

June 12, 2008 Trademarks

No initial interest confusion in metatag and sponsored listing case

Designer Skin, LLC v. S & L Vitamins, Inc., No. 05-3699, 2008 WL 2116646 (D. Ariz. May 20, 2008)

It’s always a bit nerve wracking to write about decisions when I know that counsel of record is probably going to be reading the post. That’s the situation with the recent Designer Skin v. S & L Vitamins case. Law blogger Ron Coleman (whom I consider a friend though we’ve never met) is defense counsel in the case, and he has been a longtime supporter of Internet Cases with encouragement back when I started in 2005, and with frequent links to here from his blog Likelihood of Confusion.

Ron’s good reputation is in apparent proportion to his lawyering skills, as his client S & L Vitamins was largely victorious in summary judgment proceedings in a trademark infringement matter before the U.S. District Court in Arizona. The case exemplifies a modern issue concerning the use of trademarks on the Internet.

Plaintiff Designer Skin sells indoor tanning products. Designer Skin is pretty selective about who it allows to resell its goods. Defendant S & L Vitamins – a web-based reseller – is not on Designer Skin’s list of permitted resellers. But S & L sells the products anyway. And it gets traffic to its website in part by using Designer Skin’s trademark in metatags, in page HTML, and as a keyword to trigger sponsored search results.

Designer Skin sued S & L asserting a number of causes of action, including trademark infringement. The parties cross moved for summary judgment. One main issue was whether S & L’s conduct resulted in “initial interest confusion” a la Brookfield Comm. Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Group, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999). The court ruled in favor of S & L, holding that Designer Skin’s arguments for initial interest confusion failed as a matter of law.

The court ascertained that Designer Skin was arguing initial interest confusion based on (1) S & L’s use of Designer Skin’s marks in metatags, HTML and as keywords, (2) higher placed search results (presumably because of the metatags and use of the mark in HTML), and (3) the appearance of Designer Skin’s marks on S & L’s web pages.

The first argument – said the court – misstated the law. The mere fact that S & L used the marks in this way was not enough for initial interest confusion. Missing was the notion of “bait and switch”. The court emphasized that “[d]eception . . . is essential to a finding of initial interest confusion.” When web users clicked on links to S & L’s pages which indicated Designer Skin products were being sold, they were taken to pages which, not deceivingly, sold Designer Skin products.

The second argument for initial interest confusion failed essentially because it wasn’t plausible. Even if Designer Skin had presented evidence (which the court found it hadn’t) that S & L was showing up higher in search results for “Designer Skin,” only “the naive few” would be deceived. And fooling any less than an appreciable number of users would not be enough for the claim to survive.

As for the third argument, the court found it impossible for initial interest confusion to arise based on what appeared on the site. A searcher could not be tricked into initially visiting a site by the look of the site itself – by that time he or she would already be there.

In short, the court held that because there was no deception on the part of S & L, there could be no initial interest confusion. S & L was using Designer Skin’s marks to truthfully inform searchers what they could find at the S & L site – authentic Designer Skin products.

April 14, 2008 Cybersquatting, Trademarks

Former band members’ use of service mark is not so Chic

Rogers v. Wright, No. 04-1149, 2008 WL 857761 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2008)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a permanent injunction restricting the use of the service mark CHIC in connection with musical performances by two former members of the musical group of the same name.

Plaintiff Rogers (founder of the music group Chic) claimed that Defendants Wright and Martin (former Chic singers) infringed his rights in the service mark CHIC for music and vocal entertainment services. Rogers formed the group in 1977 and obtained service mark registrations for the band name in 1982 and 2004.

Chic

Wright and Martin, who previously performed on Chic albums and in live televised performances, had been performing in the U.S. and abroad since 2003. At various times, and without permission, they operated a Web site at www.ladiesofchic.com, and billed themselves as “First Ladies of Chic”, “Chic”, “The Original Ladies of Chic”, “Chic: Live!”, and “Les Chic”. They were billed by one venue as “original artists singing all the original hits.”

The court first found that Rogers had valid rights in the CHIC mark — regardless of whether those rights arose from the 1982 or 2004 registrations or from common law rights. The court then found a likelihood of confusion between Rogers’s mark and Wright and Martin’s use of the same using the 8-factor Polaroid test.

Specifically, the court found: (1) the CHIC mark was “at least moderately strong” in that it had created a tendency in the minds of consumers to associate it with Rogers’s band; (2) the defendants’ uses of the Chic mark (as noted above) were “sufficiently similar” to cause confusion; (3) the parties competed directly in the same market; (4) an analysis under “bridging-the-gap” was not required because of the third factor; (5) there was some evidence of actual confusion; (6) the defendants intended to take advantage of the plaintiff’s reputation and good will in adopting their various uses of his mark; (7) there was little evidence of the quality of defendant’s product; and, (8) similarly, there was little evidence of the sophistication of the relevant consumer group, i.e., concert attendees or promoters. Taking all of these factors together, the court found “little difficulty” in finding Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s mark was likely to cause confusion.

The court was not persuaded by the defendants’ attempted fair use defense. The defendants had certainly used CHIC as a mark (and not, for example, mere comparative advertising or other descriptive purposes – see, e.g., Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the defendants’ promotional materials used the CHIC mark in a prominent manner. The court was similarly unpersuaded by the defendant’s argument that the Lanham Act did not apply to acts outside of the U.S.

April 8, 2008 Fraud/Misrepresentation, Trademarks

Apple vs. the Big Apple charity over apple-shaped logos

Apple, Inc. is seeing red over New York City’s attempts to register a trademark for green-friendly services, and the dispute challenges one of Apple’s trademark registrations for its ubiquitous logo.

Apple comparison

Apple has filed an Opposition (No. 91/181,984) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against NYC & Company, Inc.’s attempts to register the “Infinite Loop Apple” design mark (shown above at left). Apple asserts that use of NYC’s mark would likely cause confusion with Apple’s famous logo (shown at right) especially given the presence of Apple’s flagship Manhattan retail location.

NYC’s application states the mark is to be used for, among other things, promoting “education on environmentally friendly policies and practices of the City of New York” (See Application Nos. 77/179,942 and 77/179,968). Apple claims that confusion would be likely because of the similarities in appearance and commercial impression between the marks, and because certain of the goods and services recited by NYC are identical or highly related to goods and services offered under the Apple mark.

NYC answered the Notice of Opposition and filed a Counterclaim seeking to cancel Apple’s registration for the logo as used in connection with “mugs, dishes, drinking glasses, and wine glasses.” NYC claims that Apple procured the registration through fraud, because it knowingly misrepresented that it was using the mark in connection with those goods on its Declaration of Use and Renewal Application under sections 8 & 9 of the Trademark Act, when it fact no such use was being made. If the Board finds such fraud, Apple faces cancellation of its entire registration for those goods. Fraud has been a recurring issue before the TTAB of late, as evidenced by this recent post from John Welch’s TTABlog.

Apple, of course, denies the allegations of fraud. In any event, if the cancellation is successful, Apple’s most important marks (i.e., for computer hardware) would remain intact.

Time will tell whether Apple’s efforts to protect its mark will bear fruit. The company probably feels even more incentive to keep others from trading on its reputation and goodwill after hearing about this recent study, which found that people who see the Apple logo may feel more creative.

February 20, 2008 Trademarks

Alienware goes after “free” computer offer

Alienware Corporation v. Online Gift Rewards, No. 08-1560, S.D.N.Y. (Filed February 14, 2008).

High-performance computer manufacturer Alienware has filed suit against an online marketer alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and other theories of unfair competition. Alienware claims that the defendant has “disseminated mass unsolicited electronic solicitations” and posted Web pages offering “free” Alienware laptops, when in reality, one has to perform some “onerous” tasks to get them.

According to Alienware, after accepting the offer, users must purchase a specified amount of goods from various other sites. And this obligation is not clearly communicated, but is “presented to the consumer, if at all, only after he or she expends significant time and effort in responding to inquiries and navigating the multiple prompts.”

One may be tempted to speculate that the defendant in this case could raise some kind of defense based on fair use of the trademark. (How could you let people know what you’re offering unless you tell them; and giving away actual Alienware computers also seems like it could be protected under the first sale doctrine.)

And Alienware may have anticipated this defense, by alleging that it’s only “Alienware” serving as the source identifier for the offer, and “[t]here is no other recognizable or identifiable indication of source.” The defendant is an entity called “Online Gift Rewards.” Alienware claims that the designation is “likely to be perceived as a generic description of the offering rather than a source indicator.”

[Download the complaint]

February 2, 2008 Trademarks

Personal name must have trademark significance for protection under ACPA

Salle v. Meadows, No. 07-1089, 2007 WL 4463920 (M.D. Fla. December 17, 2007)

Defendant Meadows thought that Plaintiff Salle owed him about $9,500. He was apparently having some trouble getting paid, so he registered the plaintiff’s personal name as a domain name – briansalle.com. He then tried to sell it to Salle for the amount of the purported debt. Being uninterested in the purchase, Salle filed a cybersquatting complaint against Meadows in federal court.

Salle asserted claims under both 15 U.S.C. §1125(d) and 15 U.S.C. §1129. Both parties moved for summary judgment. It was a mixed ruling, but largely a win for Salle.

The court addressed the §1129 claim first. That portion of the Lanham Act provides:

Any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a civil action by such person.

Meadows argued that in trying to sell the domain name and thus recover money owed to him, he was not trying to profit, and therefore not liable under §1129. Despite some dispute over whether the debt was actually owed and to whom, the court ruled in Salle’s favor. “[C]yber-extortion is not a permissible way to recover a debt,” the court warned.

As for the §1125(d) claim, the court ruled in Meadows’s favor. Section 1125(d) provides, among other things, that a person shall be liable to the “owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under [§1125]” if that person has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark.

Salle argued that §1125 provides that all personal names are subject to trademark protection. Meadows, on the other hand, argued that a personal name must have some sort of trademark significance, e.g., acquired distinctiveness, in order to fall with the protection of §1125. Agreeing with Meadows’s interpretation of the section, the court found that Salle failed to present enough evidence to survive summary judgment on the question of whether he had protectible trademark rights in his personal name.

January 22, 2008 Trademarks

Filter maker says Apple’s trademark threats a bunch of hot air

“Lowest perceptive capabilities.” Is that code for “a moron in a hurry“?

Chicago-based BlueAir, Inc. has apparently been getting some threats from Apple over BlueAir’s pending trademark registration for the mark AIRPOD, to be used in connection with desk top air purifiers. Apple says AIRPOD will infringe on the IPOD mark.

BlueAir has gone on the offensive, asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to enter a declaratory judgment of no infringement.

The heart of BlueAir’s allegations are as follows:

“There is no reasonable likelihood of confusion, mistake, or error in the marketplace for persons of even the lowest perceptive capabilities who are seeking an iPod music player considering or buying an AIRPOD desktop air cleaner instead.”

This dispute has been going on for a few months, and it is interesting to see suit filed now, to essentially coincide with the introduction of the MacBook Air.

BlueAir, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 08-427 (N.D. Ill. filed January 18, 2007)
[Download the Complaint]