IP Law Blog

By: W. Scott Cameron

Farzad and Lisa Tabari are auto brokers specializing in matching customers with new Lexus automobiles through authorized Lexus dealers. They used two Internet domain names to market their business – buy-a-lexus.com and buyorleaselexus.com. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. (“Toyota”), the exclusive distributor of new Lexus vehicles, objected to the Tabari’s use of their trademark “Lexus” in the domain names, and sued for infringement. The district court found infringement after a bench trial, and granted Toyota’s request for an injunction. Specifically, it enjoined the Tabari’s use of the Lexus mark in any domain names. The Tabaris appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which agreed with the Tabaris and reversed. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari (9^th Cir. July 8, 2010).

By: James Kachmar

The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the application of anti-dilution law to trademarks that happen to be common English words. In Visa International Service Association v. JSL Corporation (decided June 28, 2010), the Court held that the defendants’ use of the term “eVisa” for its multilingual education and information business was likely to dilute the Visa trademark. Joseph Orr, who operated eVisa through JSL Corp., ran an English language tutoring service while living in Japan called “Eikaiwa Visa.” (Eikaiwa is Japanese for “English conversation.”) After returning to the U.S., Orr started eVisa (the short form of Eikaiwa Visa) and claimed that the use of the word “visa” was meant to suggest “the ability to travel both linguistically and physically through the English speaking world.” Visa sued JSL claiming that eVisa was likely to dilute its “Visa” trademark. The district court granted summary judgment in Visa’s favor.

By: Zachary M. Wadle

The following scenario is common when a business owner attempts to register a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”): The business owner decides upon a seemingly unique business trademark. The business owner conducts a quick internet search for similar trademarks being used in the same industry, and does not find anything. Confident in the uniqueness of the mark, the business owner files for registration of the trademark with the USPTO, pays the required fee, and presumes the application will fly through the registration process with a hitch. A few months later, the business owner receives an “office action” from an Examining Attorney at the USPTO.

By: Matthew G. Massari

In February 2010, a U.S. District Court judge for the Northern District of California denied the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that argues the NCAA and its licensees should compensate former student athletes for the use of their images and likenesses. Subsequent to the judge’s order, eleven former college football and basketball players joined former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon in the litigation. O’Bannon alleges that the NCAA has and continues to enter into agreements that allow the use of his image without compensation paid to him, including a 2007 agreement between the NCAA and Thought Equity Motion, Inc. to offer “classic” college basketball games online. 

By: Jeffrey Pietsch

Victor’s Secret, a small store in Kentucky selling adult videos and sex toys, lost another battle in a trademark dilution case brought by Victoria’s Secret. Last month, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction granted by the District Court that concluded that the trademark Victor’s Secret or Victor’s Little Secret disparages and reduces the positive associations of the Victoria’s Secret mark. The Sixth Circuit on review sought to determine whether Victoria’s Secret’s case met the standards of “dilution by tarnishment” as set out in the recently enacted Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006.

by Matthew Massari

On May 24, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that may ultimately change the way pro sports teams and leagues can license team-owned intellectual property for merchandise and apparel items. The Supreme Court’s ruling in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League et al., case number 08-66, struck a significant blow to the long-standing joint venture between the National Football League (NFL) and its 32 member teams to license and market team-owned trademarks through a single entity. The case stems from a licensing agreement the NFL made with Reebok International Ltd. in 2000 to be the exclusive manufacturer and marketer of hats bearing NFL team trademarks.

by James Kachmar

On May 6, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the case Au-Tomotive Gold Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., et al. in which it decided the issue of whether the sale of marquee license plates bearing Volkswagen badges that Au-Tomotive Gold (“Auto Gold”) had purchased from a Volkswagen dealer constituted trademark infringement or whether the sale of the plates was protected by the “first sale” doctrine. 

by Matt Massari

Patent lawyers have understood the consequences of sending a cease and desist letter to a potential infringer since the Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007). After MedImmune, a party contemplating sending such a letter risks that the recipient may file for a declaratory judgment in their own jurisdiction.  This may require the sender to appear in a distant court, at their own expense.  Thus, the patent owner must be very careful when communicating with possible infringers. Several recent decisions have applied the MedImmune standard for declaratory judgment jurisdiction to trademark controversies, making it difficult for trademark lawyers to avoid exposure to a declaratory judgment action after contacting a potential infringer. 

by Sara Davidson

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion on April 1, 2010 that provides a compass for companies like eBay to navigate the murky waters of trademark infringement in the e-commerce marketplace. Tiffany & Co. v. eBay Inc., No. 08- 3947 (2d Cir. April 1, 2010)

By W. Scott Cameron

Mighty Leaf Tea sought to register the mark “ML” in standard character form to market, not tea, but rather personal care products and skin care products, including skin soap, body wash, foam bath, body lotion, body scrub, bath salts, massage oils, potpourri, and incense.  It filed its application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 2, 2007, claiming first use in November of 2004.  The USPTO denied the application, however, because it found a likelihood of confusion with the mark “ML MARK LEES,” which had previously been registered for “skin care products, namely skin cleanser, skin toner, skin cream, skin lotion, skin mask gel, make-up foundation, powder and blush.” 

by Zachare J. Wadle

United States trademark law provides for the filing of trademark applications to protect (or reserve) trademarks which are not yet actually in use in commerce. The law will allow for filing of a trademark application, with the benefit of constructive use and priority, based upon the  
Applicant’s “bona fide intent to use” a mark. The question then becomes what constitutes “bona fide intent to use a mark?”

By Scott Hervey

The battle over the right to the trademark “Tavern on the Green” is over. In Manhattan earlier this month U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum ruled in favor of New York City, casting aside the prior concessionaire’s claim that it owned and controlled the famed “Tavern on the Green” trademark. The risk to New York losing were extremely high. Tavern on the Green, LP and LeRoy Adventures Inc. claimed ownership of the iconic brand that had recently been valued at $19 million and were seeking an injunction to prevent the new operator and the city from using the mark. Although the restaurant was the second-highest-grossing independent restaurant in the U.S. in 2008, with sales of $34.2 million. It’s almost certain that the new operator would renegotiate its winning bid if it was not able to use the Tavern on the Green mark, which would mean the city could lose millions of dollars in license fees.

By Jeff Pietsch

Last week, a United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied a motion by Intel to dismiss a declaratory judgment suit brought by Express Scripts Inc. Since last February, Express Scripts has been marketing some of its health care and pharmaceutical consulting services under the trademark “Intellact.” Shortly thereafter, Express Scripts received a cease and desist letter from Intel claiming that Express Scripts’ “Intellact” trademark infringed on Intel’s trademark rights. Intel specifically stated that the “Intellact” trademark would likely deceive or confuse consumers as to the source of the goods, namely that consumers would believe “Intellact” was affiliated with Intel. According to the suit filed by Express Scripts for declaratory judgment, Intel claims that it owns “all rights to names that contain the root of the word ‘intelligent.’” This article will examine trademark infringement in light of Express Scripts’ request for declaratory judgment.

By W. Scott Cameron

The Ninth Circuit issued an interesting ruling last week regarding the ownership and status of a domain name as property. In Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, ___ F.3d ___, Feb. 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a judgment creditor can levy a domain name of a judgment debtor to satisfy his judgment. This ruling was interesting for a couple of reasons. First was the location where the domain name can be levied, and second the facts of the case make the result somewhat ironic.

by Zachary Wadlé

The Heart Attack Grill in Chandler, Arizona (http://www.heartattackgrill.com) is unabashedly unhealthful. The morbidly titled restaurant proclaims its food has “a taste worth dying for,” and offers to feed all patrons 350 pounds and over for free. The menu features single through quadruple ”bypass burgers” (actual quadruple bypass burger pictured above), "flatliner fries" deep fried in pure lard, unfiltered “Lucky Strike” cigarettes, and Jolt Cola, amongst other fulsome fare. 

by Scott Hervey

A basic prerequisite for the ownership and registration of a trademark is that the mark is “used in commerce.”  The Trademark Act defines “use in commerce” as the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade. Under the Act, a mark is deemed to be used in commerce when: (i) the mark is placed in any manner on goods, their containers, their displays, on the goods’ tags or labels and, in certain cases,  on documents associated with the goods or their sale; and (ii) the goods are sold or transported in interstate commerce.

by Scott Hervey

After four years, the quest to obtain federal trademark protection for the mark MATTRESS.COM by owner 1800Mattress.com IP, LLC, formerly Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp, has been put to bed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has finally held that the mark is generic and not entitled to registration.

by Jeff Pietsch

Earlier this year, the Tenth Circuit court upheld a preliminary injunction granted in favor of an electronics equipment manufacturer against a reseller of its goods in a trademark infringement action. In Beltronics v. Midwest Inventory Distribution, the reseller (Midwest) argued that it was able to resell the manufacturer’s goods based on the first sale doctrine. The court, however, disagreed with this assessment and ruled that the resellers violated the manufacturer’s trademark rights because Midwest’s sales caused consumer confusion.

By Zachary Wadlé

Most people are familiar with the concept of trademarks in the form of logos or words.  But intellectual property can also be embodied in sounds not represented by words and drawings, but rather musical notes and/or auditory tones.  While sound marks are not nearly as common as word marks, many sound marks are immediately recognizable, including Southwest Airline’s “Ding!,” MGM's roaring lion, AOL’s “You've got mail,” the Pillsbury Doughboy’s giggle, NBC’s chimes, Nokia’s default cell phone ringtone, and the Harlem Globetrotter’s theme song.  However, the legal requirements to register such sound marks are different than word marks, and much less well-defined by the courts.

by Scott Hervey

Recently the 7^th Circuit in Sunstar, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Company provided a reminder to attorneys engaging in a business transaction between domestic and a foreign parties. Stated plainly, the 7^th Circuit reminded business attorneys that if a term is included in a transaction document – especially if that term is a foreign word – be sure you understand what it means. This case presented the question of how a foreign legal term included in a trademark license agreement should be interpreted where the choice of law for such agreement was Illinois state law. 

By Jeff Pietsch

Not all trademark law is aimed at protecting consumers. The Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“Act”) is aimed at protecting a company’s property right in its trademark. Dilution is defined as “the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of competition between the parties or the likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception.” In essence, dilution forbids the use of a famous trademark by others in any manner that lessens the uniqueness of the mark. Again, the purpose of the dilution doctrine is not to protect the consumer, but to protect the property right and goodwill that a company has developed in a mark.

By Zachary J. Wadlé

Missouri teenager Jimmy Winkelmann grew weary of his high school classmates’ blind and materialistic infatuation with The North Face products, and decided something had to be done. Mr. Winkelmann’s answer was to come up with his own competing apparel line to mock the ubiquitous North Face fleece jackets found on his high school campus. He called his line “The South Butt” and designed a suspiciously similar logo to that of The North Face.

by Scott Hervey

This is about a birthday card. Not just any birthday card mind you. This birthday card, produced by Hallmark Cards, depicts a cartoon waitress, dressed in an apron, serving food to a restaurant customer. However, not just any waitress could create such a controversy requiring an appeal to the 9^th Circuit. This waitress has, for her head, an oversized photograph of Paris Hilton’s head, and is engaged in witty banter with the customer wherein the cartoon waitress with the oversized Paris Hilton head states Paris’ trademarked (yes, she did file for Federal trademark protection) phrase, “That’s Hot.” What’s all the fuss about? Apparently Hallmark forgot to ask the young heiress if they could use her picture on their card.

By Scott Hervey

Those in the wine industry regularly traverse a vast array of statutes, rules and regulations in an effort to get their grape from the vine into your glass. One set of regulations all wine producers deal with are those governing wine labeling. The federal government, which regulates wine labels through the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (the TTB), imposes rules which state what must and what may not be included on a wine label. A winery or wine producer must obtain federal approval of each wine label before bottling wine in the United States. In addition to federal approval, some states have their own wine label approval process wine producers and or distributors must go through prior to a wine being sold within that state. Most of the time the federal and state wine label approval process is straight forward. However, every so often a situation arises which shows the process can be complex and subjective.

by Dale C. Campbell

Section 43(a) the Lanham Act provides for liability related to unregistered marks. Section 43(a) provides for civil liability for any person who, IN connection with any goods or service uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol or any combination thereof, or any false designation origin, false or misleading description of fact or false or misleading misrepresentation of which (a) is likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of the goods or services by another person or (b) in commercial advertising or promotion misrepresents the nature, character qualities or origin of his or her good, service or commercial activity. Subsection (a) is commonly known as the false origin claim and subsection (b) is commonly known as false advertising claim. In short, one can’t be liable for claims of false origin even if the statements are not made in the course of commercial advertising or promotion as required in subsection (b).

by Scott Hervey

It’s been five years since the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dramatically changed the way Untied States trademark registrations are handled. The case of Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc. reflected an analytical shift in the way in which the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) determines whether an applicant committed fraud on the trademark office. The holding also provided those seeking to cancel a trademark registration with a powerful weapon, and created substantial risk for trademark applicants and registrants who overstate the goods or services in their application. The facts of Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc. are as follows:

by Jeff Pietsch

Earlier this month, the Tenth Circuit court upheld a preliminary injunction granted in favor of a manufacturer of electronics equipment against a reseller of its goods in a trademark infringement action. (Beltronics v. Midwest Inventory Distribution (10th Cir. April 9, 2009)). The reseller argued that it was able to resell the manufacturer’s goods online based on the first sale doctrine. The court, however, disagreed with this assessment and ruled that the resellers violated the manufacturer’s trademark rights because Midwest’s actions caused consumer confusion.

By Zachary Wadlé

The widely popular Guitar Hero videogame series created by Activision Publishing, Inc. allows players to emulate their favorite rock guitarists, without requiring any actual guitar playing skill. However, this virtual reality was endangered last year by a threatened patent infringement lawsuit by guitar company, Gibson, longtime maker of iconic rock guitars such as the Gibson “Les Paul,” “SG,” “ES-335,” and “Flying V,” to name a few.

 In January 2008, Gibson sent a letter to Activision, claiming that Guitar Hero infringed upon Gibson’s registered U.S. Patent No. 5,990,405 (the “‘405 Patent”). This patent covered "a system and method for generating and controlling a simulated musical concert experience." Gibson claimed that the Guitar Hero game controllers – miniature plastic replicas of Gibson guitars with no strings, and four buttons on the fret-board – infringed upon Gibson’s patent and required Activision to obtain a license from Gibson, or else halt sales of any version of the Guitar Hero game and controllers.    

By Jeff Pietsch

Trademark law is traditionally concerned with protecting consumers. Trademarks protect consumers by helping consumers identify the source of the goods or service. For example, when a consumer buys a product, she knows exactly what she is going to get with the product based on its mark. Trademark law was designed to protect these consumers by protecting these marks against copy-cats or products with confusingly similar marks. Cases based on consumer protection concern similar products with similar marks that may confuse consumers. 

By Dale C. Campbell

The Ninth Circuit recently considered the enforceability of non-competition covenants contained in franchise-like agreements.  (Comedy Clubs, Inc. v. Improv West Associates (9th Cir. January 29, 2009; WL 205046.)

The plaintiff Comedy Club, Inc. (“CCI”) entered into a trademark license with Improv West Associates (“IMPROV”). CCI owned and operated restaurants and comedy clubs across the nation. The license agreement provided that IMPROV granted CCI an exclusive nationwide license to use the IMPROV marks; that CCI would open four IMPROV clubs a year in 2001 through 2003; and CCI would not operate any non-IMPROV clubs during the term of the license.

by James Kachmar

The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether a “first publication” exclusion in an insurance policy applies to trademark infringement claims. In United National Insurance Company v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., et al., decided February 2, 2009, the Ninth Circuit resolved a split among lower courts and held that a “first publication” exclusion did apply under California law.

In December 1997, Sunset Health Products, Inc. (“Sunset”) hired Spectrum to advertise and distribute a diet drink called “Hollywood 48 Hour Miracle Diet” drink. Celebrity Products Direct, Inc. (“Celebrity”) was formed a short time later and began selling a similar product, “The Original Hollywood Celebrity Diet” drink. Spectrum then terminated its contract with Sunset and begin marketing the Celebrity diet drink.   Sunset made repeated demands that Spectrum cease infringing on its Miracle Diet trademark. 

By Jeff Pietsch

Last year, Google lost the first round of a court battle against Vulcan Golf, a golf club manufacturer, in a trademark and cybersquatting dispute. In that decision, the US District Court in Illinois ruled that Google could be sued for its role in serving ads on websites that use domain names that violate trademark and cybersquatting laws. In the latest round of decisions on this case, the court denied class certification damaging the plaintiffs’ hopes in prevailing in this matter.  

By Scott Hervey

While the producers of American Idol, FreemantleMedia North America, appreciate just how much people love the show, it’s now obvious Freemantle doesn’t agree with the old adage that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. In late December, Freemantle filed suit against a strip club in Austin, Texas that ran a stripper talent contest, and called it “Stripper Idol” and also used the American Idol logo. Freemantle claimed that the strip club owner’s use of “Stripper Idol” in connection with its stripper talent contest constitutes Federal trademark infringement because such use “is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association” of the strip club owners with Freemantle or the American Idol program.

by Scott Cameron

Trademark infringement is generally the improper use of a competitor’s trademark that results in the customer buying one product thinking it is another. The classic example is when the new competitor adopts the name of the established competitor, or varies the name ever so slightly. Company A calls its new product “TheUltraWidget” to trade on the goodwill Company B has built in its best-selling “UltraWidget.”

These cases are pretty simple. If the consumer is likely to be confused by Company A’s use of Company B’s trademark, and Company B is harmed by (or Company A profits from) that use, there is actionable trademark infringement. As long as Company B can establish the elements of the claim, it is entitled to injunctive relief and monetary damages.

By Audrey A. Millemann

The beginning of the year is a good time to review your clients’ intellectual property needs. The first and most important thing to do is to determine what intellectual property the client has. Once the intellectual property has been identified, the means of protecting it can be analyzed and a plan for establishing protection set up. 

What is Intellectual Property?

Almost anything can constitute intellectual property. IP may fall into one or more of the following categories: inventions that can be patented, expression that is copyrightable, names or logos that are trademarks, and information that is a trade secret.

By Scott Hervey

The holiday season means something different for each of us. For some it’s a time for eggnog, parties and mistletoe. For others, it’s a time for cease and desist letters, seizure actions and lawsuits. Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Clause, and his lawyers stand ready to sue those who use his marks and other intellectual property without permission.

By Jeffrey Pietsch

Trademark infringement occurs when a third party uses a mark in a way that infringes upon a trademark owner’s exclusive right and use of a trademark. Often, the third party will use a similar mark in a way that confuses consumers as to the source of the goods and services. For example, a fast food restaurant named “Wendi’s” would likely cause confusion with “Wendy’s.” Trademark infringement can occur only when it is likely that consumers will be confused as to the source of the goods. The purpose of this article is to examine the test and factors that courts use to determine if such infringement exists.

James Kachmar

The Grand Theft Auto (“GTA”) video game series is one of the most successful video games of all time. In April 2005, the maker of GTA was sued for trademark infringement as a result of its inclusion of a fictional strip club in its game that bore a resemblance to a real strip club in East Los Angeles. On November 5, 2008, the Ninth Circuit in the case E.S.S. Entertainment 20002, Inc. v. Rockstar Videos, Inc., et al. issued its opinion in this case involving video games and virtual strip clubs and reaffirmed the protections of the First Amendment as a defense to trademark infringement claims.

Rockstar Games, Inc. (“Rockstar”) manufactures the GTA video game series, which includes Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The games take place in fictional cities resembling actual American urban areas. Each game is accompanied by a disclaimer stating that the locations depicted are fictional. GTA: San Andreas was created to emulate the West Coast “gangster” culture and depicts the virtual city of Los Santos, which is intended to imitate actual Los Angeles neighborhoods. 

By Dale C. Campbell

The 2008 presidential election is just two weeks away. The candidates have discussed everything from foreign policy, the economy, the war in Iraq, washed-up homeland terrorists, and where you find the “real” America. But where do the candidates stand with respect to intellectual property protection?

For those of you who are interested, and the mere fact that you are continuing to read this article means that you are, a little-publicized conference sponsored by the IP section of the Colorado Bar was held in August 2008, during which two surrogates for Senator McCain and two circuits for Senator Obama discussed their respective candidates’ positions on topics of interest to the IP bar. A video presentation of the discussion can be if you search: IP Policy and the Presidential Debate Video Replay.

By Scott Hervey

John Facenda is a football legend. His deep, baritone voice is “distinctive,” some say “legendary.” Without question, for most football fans, John Facenda was the voice of NFL Films. 

 For decades Facenda worked for NFL Films as an off camera commentator. He worked on a session by session basis under an oral agreement, receiving a per performance fee. Shortly before he died in 1984, Facenda signed a “standard release” contract with NFL Films which stated that NFL Films enjoys “the unequivocal right to use the audio and visual film sequences recorded of me, or any part of them… in perpetuity and by whatever media or manner NFL Films…sees fit, provided, however, such use does not constitute an endorsement of any product or service.” (Emphasis added.)

In 2005, NFL Films produced a 22 minute long television program entitled “The Making of Madden NFL 2006.” The program was about the soon to be released version of the highly popular video game, Madden NFL. The program featured interviews with NFL players and game producers; it contained several sequences comparing the games virtual environment with the actual NFL playing environment, and commented on the realism of the graphic quality of the video game. The program also featured audio and video clips from pervious NFL Films productions, including three sentences, lasting a total of 13 seconds, that were read by Facenda. The producers of the program modified Facenda’s audio clips to make his voice sound more like a computer.

Facenda’s estate sued NFL Films and others claiming that the use of Facenda’s voice in the program falsely implied that Facenda or his estate had agreed to endorse the video game. 

By Jeffrey Pietsch

eBay let out a sigh of relief last month when a New York Federal Court ruled that eBay’s efforts to remove sellers of counterfeit goods was sufficient to combat the sale of fake Tiffany & Co. products. In fact, the court held that trademark holders, such as Tiffany & Co., are the ones responsible for policing the online market place for counterfeit products, not online “swap meets” such as eBay.

By Dale C. Campbell

Search engine websites sell keywords as a component of their advertising programs. By purchasing an advertising keyword, a business’s advertisement will appear next to the search results whenever a person enters the advertising keyword as a search term. Trademark questions arise whenever a competitor purchases an advertisement keyword that is confusingly similar to the protected mark of another competitor, thereby causing its advertisement to pop up next to the search results.

By Scott Hervey          

The First Circuit recently decided a case that exemplifies the downfall of building a brand around merely generic terms. No matter how long the mark owner may use a mark in commerce, it is going to be next to impossible to prevent competitors from using those generic components, even where the use is part of the competitor’s trademark.

Boston Duck Tours operated a sightseeing tour operation of the Boston area since 1994 and used renovated WWII amphibious vehicles commonly referred to as “ducks.” In 2001, Super Duck Tours began operation of a sightseeing land and water tour. Super Duck Tours originally operated its business solely in Portland, Maine. In 2007, Super Duck Tours expanded its operation and began to offer tours in certain parts of Boston not serviced by Boston Duck Tours. 

By Jeff Pietsch           

 Trademark infringement occurs when a third party uses a mark in a way that infringes upon a trademark owner’s exclusive right and use of a trademark. Often, the third party will use a similar mark in a way that confuses consumers as to the source of the goods and services. For example, a fast food restaurant named “Wendi’s” would likely cause confusion with “Wendy’s.” Trademark infringement can occur only when it is likely that consumers will be confused as to the source of the goods. The purpose of this article is to examine the test and factors that courts use to determine if such infringement exists.

By Scott Hervey

Last October I had the good fortune of being invited to attend my friend’s “man shower” in Las Vegas. What made this trip interesting was the fact that this all guy’s version of a baby shower would be the subject of an episode of the VH1 reality TV show “Scott Baio is 46 and Pregnant.” While there are a number of interesting stories that came out of this first and only man style baby shower, the “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” rule prohibits me from telling you any. However, the tales fit for this article comes from my observations of the numerous, IP issues that came up during our two days of shooting.

As regular readers of my articles may know, part of my practice includes representing independent motion picture and reality television producers. While I have been production counsel for a number of movies and reality television shows, most of my work occurs before the cameras ever roll. Part of this work involves working with the production staff and preparing them to deal with those issues that may arrive when shooting in an environment you don’t entirely control. However, being on set and having to identify issues on the fly (especially when the person identifying the issues is not a lawyer) is very different from engaging in theoretical and hypothetical discussions.

By Scott Hervey

As 2008 gets underway, its time for companies to take a fresh look at how they manage intellectual property assets. This applies to companies that have never taken serious steps to protect intellectual property, and those companies that have an understanding of the value of intellectual property and take active steps to secure and protect these assets.   The three steps below are a good starting point for companies addressing this issue for a first time, and are a well needed refresher for companies that already have IP management protocols in place.

By Jeff Pietsch

Last week, the Second Circuit affirmed a summary judgment against an advertising consultant in a suit against American Express. The consultant, Stephen Goetz, sued American Express for misappropriation and trademark infringement for the slogan “My Life, My Card” that Goetz claimed to have introduced to American Express. The court affirmed the summary judgment stating that Goetz never actually used the slogan in commerce. Since Goetz never used the slogan in commerce, he had no trademark rights in the mark.

In the summer of 2004, Goetz worked as a consultant for Mez Design. While at Mez Design, Goetz formulated an idea to allow credit card customers to personalize their credit cards by choosing a photograph to be displayed on the face of the card. Goetz then developed software to produce these cards with the idea of selling or licensing the software to credit card companies. After developing the software, Goetz mailed proposals to large credit card companies, including American Express. In these proposals, Goetz prominently displayed the slogan “My Life, My Card.” On July 30, 2004, Goetz mailed a proposal to American Express.

By Jeffrey Pietsch 

Plaintiffs in trademark infringement cases may not be eligible for attorney fees depending on their election of damages. This last December, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined whether or not electing statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) precludes the awarding of attorney fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b). The court held that an election for statutory damages does indeed bar the plaintiff from recovering attorney fees in counterfeiting cases.

By James Kachmar

On December 28, 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the case titled Applied Information Sciences Corp. v. eBay, Inc., in which it clarified the plaintiff’s burden in a federally registered trademark infringement action. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion demonstrates the importance of a plaintiff in a trademark infringement claim being prepared to offer evidence of the likelihood of confusion in order to avoid dismissal of its trademark infringement claims.

By Scott Hervey

In a trademark counterfeiting claim, the successful plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages or can statutory damages. However, according to a recent decision by the 9^th Circuit, depending on the recovery sought, the plaintiff may loose the ability to recover attorney fees.

In K and N Engineering, Inc. v. Bulat  the defendants were selling unauthorized decals bearing the K&N logo on eBay. The defendants created vinyl decals in the shape of plaintiff’s logo and sold 89 sets of those decals for a total of $267. After contacting the defendants, K & N filed a complaint alleging trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, and other related claims. K&N also elected to seek statutory damages under 15 USC 1117(c). The district court granted judgment in favor of K&N and awarded it statutory damages of $20,000 under 15 USC 1117(c) and $100,000 in attorney’s fees under 1117(b). The defendant appealed the attorney’s fee award and argued that K&N’s election to receive statutory damages under 15 UCS 1117(c) precludes an award of attorney’s fees under 1117(b).

By Scott Hervey

Just how valuable are baseball statistics? Apparently very valuable. In fact, baseball statistics are so valuable that CBC Distribution and Marketing, which has run the CDM Fantasy Sports leagues since 1992, sued Major League Baseball and challenged its ownership claim over player statistics.   In a matter which rose all the way to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8^th Circuit, CBC agued that baseball statistics become historical facts as soon as a game is over, and that it shouldn’t have to pay for the right to use them. Major League Baseball claimed that the right of publicity belonging to major league baseball players makes it illegal for fantasy leagues to commercially exploit the statistical profiles of its players.

By Jeff Pietsch

The lawsuit Tiffany & Co. brought against Ebay in 2004 for contributory trademark infringement is currently being heard in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The outcome of this trial, though likely to continue on appeal, will greatly affect internet auction websites. A victory by Tiffany will not only spawn hundreds of additional lawsuits against Ebay, it will cost the internet auctioneer millions of dollars in policing costs.

By Scott Cameron

Has eBay become so powerful that it can successfully claim to be the only “Bay” on the Internet? That’s what it argued in a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals trademark infringement case. In that case, Perfumebay.com, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., - - - F.3d - - - (9^th Cir. November 5, 2007), the court upheld a federal district court decision from the Central District of California which ruled that the term “PerfumeBay” and “perfumebay.com” infringed the mark of Internet giant eBay. 

By Scott Hervey

There is a growing trademark dispute between a small Alaskan museum devoted to a 900 piece display of hammers and the great Los Angeles based Hammer Museum (formerly known as the Armand Hammer Museum). On February 10, 2006, the Los Angeles based Hammer Museum filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark, HAMMER MUSEUM for museum services. Early this summer, Dave Pahl, the founder of the Alaska museum, became aware of the L.A. Hammer’s application and filed his own in July. Pahl filed his application based on use in commerce and listed the date of first use as April 14, 2000.

By Scott Cameron

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion last week that, while not necessarily controversial or new, serves as a good reminder for trademark litigators: There must be actual infringement to prevail in a trademark infringement lawsuit. While this would seem to be obvious, the Ninth Circuit thought it was an important enough reminder to actually publish the decision, and even more surprisingly, issued their unanimous opinion just over a month after oral argument.

By Dale Campbell

Intellectual property litigation relies heavily upon the use of expert testimony. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently analyzed the intersection of Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 and the ruling in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (“Daubert”) concerning the admissibility of expert testimony and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 for summary judgment. Stillwell v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 482 F.3d 1187 (9^th Cir. 2007). Admissibility of expert testimony must be carefully evaluated for reliability and helpfulness, but that is different than the analysis for whether a triable issue of fact is established.

By James Kachmar

In Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things International Ltd., et al., the California Court of Appeal (Second App. Dist., July 30, 2007) was confronted with the issue of whether to apply the statute of limitations or the equitable doctrine of laches to determine whether plaintiffs’ claims for trade dress infringement were barred as a matter of law. The Court held that it was unnecessary to address the split of authority on the issue because it found that plaintiffs’ claims for trade dress infringement were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of a directed verdict against plaintiffs as to these claims.

By Scott Hervey

According to the Department of Commerce, losses to U.S. businesses from the counterfeiting of trademarked consumer products are estimated at $200 billion a year. A model trademark law proposed by the International Trademark Association and currently winding its way through the legislative process in California includes a provision which appears to be an attempt to slow this ever growing enterprise.

The proposed new trademark law provides that the owner of a state registered mark may bring an action for infringement against any persons that “knowingly facilitate, enable, or otherwise assist a person to manufacture, use, distribute, display, or sell any goods or services bearing any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a mark registered under this chapter, without the consent of the registrant.” Under the new trademark law, a person is presumed to have acted knowingly if that person continues to engage in the complained of activity following delivery and receipt of a cease and desist demand letter containing certain language and information. 

By Jeff Pietsch

          Earlier this month, the shoe company Skechers defeated a preliminary injunction brought by the shoe company ASICS. The injunction against Skechers sought to prevent Skechers from making and selling their shoes. ASICS brought this action against Skechers for trademark infringement claiming that Skechers hijacked the ASICS brand image and goodwill by using a similar stripe mark that ASICS has used on its shoes over its 40 year history. The two shoes both use a stripe mark, but the ASICS shoe uses two horizontal stripes while the Skecher shoe has only one stripe. The court found that the design of these shoes were dissimilar and would not likely create consumer confusion. Since ASICS was not likely to succeed in its trademark infringement action, the court denied the injunction against Skechers. This case is just a sampling of the many trademark infringement claims that are brought in court each month. The purpose of this article is to examine the test that courts use to determine if trademark infringement exists.

By Dale Campbell

          There always has been a few simple things to do when a named partner leaves a law firm: change the name of the firm, stationery and business cards, and send a notice to clients. Today, additional tasks include changing web page domain names, email addresses, and websites. Is that enough? One intellectual property attorney in Pennsylvania thought not and filed suit against his former firm alleging violation of federal and state unfair competition and trademark law and the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, among other causes of action.

By Jeff Pietsch

And the Oscar goes too …. This phrase means only one thing to most people: the annual award given to those celebrated actors and actresses at the Academy Awards each February. The eight and a half pound gold plated statue standing thirteen and a half inches tall is as well known as any celebrity, and its name has become synonymous with the show itself. Although the origin of the name is in dispute, the statute has been called Oscar since the 1930’s. 

The Oscar name is a registered trademark of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and they have vigorously protected the use of their famous mark. Recently, the Academy filed suit against an Italian broadcaster who used the word Oscar in the title of several of their award programs.   These shows were broadcast in Italian to subscribers living in the United States. The Academy filed a motion for summary judgment based on the broadcaster’s trademark infringement.  This motion was denied by the United States District Court, Central District of California. The judge held that the mark Oscar may be generic in Italian and may not be entitled to trademark protection.

By James Kachmar

In January 2007, the Ninth Circuit adopted the long-standing policy of the Patent Trade Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that “use in commerce only creates trademark rights when the use is lawful.” This case, CreAgri, Inc. v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc., arose out of competing trademark claims brought by two manufacturers of a dietary supplement. 

By Jeff Pietsch

Last week Keith Urban, the Grammy nominated country singer from Australia, sued Keith Urban, a New Jersey painter, for use of the website www.keithurban.com. The suit filed in federal court alleges that Keith Urban, the painter, is infringing on the singer’s trademark rights by misleading internet users into believing that the website is owned by the singer. The website, which has been owned and registered by the painter since 1999, sells oil paintings through the website. Upon entering the site users see the following: “You have reached the site of Keith Urban. To those who don’t know, oil painting is one of my hobbies.” Users are then directed to a link which displays several paintings. The singer claims this use infringes on the Keith Urban trademark by violating the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, and federal unfair competition laws. This article will examine the claims against the painter under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

By Jeffrey Pietsch

In 2006, Federal District Courts throughout the country were asked to decide if purchasing and using trademark-protected keywords to trigger internet advertising constitute trademark violations as contemplated by the Lanham Act. Unfortunately for advertisers, these rulings were inconsistent. In 2007, this trend continues with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruling in J.G. Wentworth v. Settlement Funding, LLC, No. 06-0597 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2007). In J.G. Wentworth, the court siding with advertisers, ruled that using trademark-protected words to trigger internet advertising does not violate trademark law.

By Scott Hervey

On October 31, 2005, adult film actress Mary Cook filed a trademark registration application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark MARY CAREY for motion pictures featuring adult entertainment, and a series of prerecorded video cassettes, DVDs, multimedia software and interactive multimedia featuring adult video and visual dramatic performances. On August 29, 2006, the USPTO published the mark in the Official Gazette, beginning the thirty day period in which any third party who believes that they would be damaged by the registration of the mark could oppose its registration. If no opposition is filed within the thirty day time period, the USPTO will usually register the mark. However, on December 27, 2006 pop star diva Mariah Carey, through her company Automatic Princess Holdings, LLC, filed an opposition to the registration of the porn star’s mark, MARY CAREY, claiming that consumers are likely to be confused and believe that there is some association or affiliation between the MARIAH CAREY marks owned by the pop star and MARY CAREY. 

By Scott Hervey

In October, Congress signed into law the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (“TDRA”). This Act overrules the High Courts holding in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003) and lays to rest a number of other issues that had long split the federal circuits.

By Audrey A. Millemann

            A business's intellectual property may be its most valuable asset. Whether it is biotechnology, trade names, business methods, or computer software, intellectual property should be protected to the greatest extent possible in order to maximize the value of the business. This article summarizes the types of intellectual property protection that are available.

By April Hiroshima Gatling

          This month, a United States District Court ruled that retailer Land’s End will get a trial in a case where defendant website owners are accused of profiting from the company’s online affiliate program through a scheme that gave “typosquatting” a new twist.

          “Typosquatting” is a form of cybersquatting that relies on typographical mistakes made by Internet users when inputting a website address into a web browser. Most typosquatters are either in the practice of tricking or diverting Internet users to alternative websites or attempting to sell the domain name back to the trademark owner.         In this case, however, defendants directed Internet users to the Land’s End’s website, but only after channeling them through “affiliate” sites owned by defendants, who in turn received commissions associated with subsequent purchases.

By Andrea Anapolsky

What do Fendi, compact discs, car parts and Viagra have in common? They are among thousands of products targeted by intellectual property pirates who have successfully infiltrated the global market with thousands of counterfeited trademarked items. And buying Fendi handbags at Wal-Mart is just the tip of the iceberg. What lurks beneath the surface is a lucrative underground economy, which as of January 2006, resulted in an annual loss of $1.54 billion dollars worldwide, reported the Gieschen Consultancy.

By Scott Hervey

Canada has made a fundamental change in its Trade-mark Examination practice. It had been a longstanding practice in the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (the governmental body responsible for reregistering trade-marks) of determining the priority of applications based on the earliest of the following: the date of first use or making known in Canada, the date of filing in Canada, or the date of filing of the Paris Convention priority application. The legitimacy of assessing priority in this regard was challenged and overturned by the Federal Court of Appeals in May of this year in Attorney General of Canada v. Effigi (2005 FCA 172).

Are you tired of all of the letters inviting you to refinance your home mortgage?#160 Have you ever been shocked and a little angry when you receive such a letter and see the name of your lending institution, your account number and the amount owed on your mortgage?#160 You are not the only one that was upset.#160 The financial institutions carrying consumer mortgages grew increasingly upset as a number of customers refinanced.#160 They also grew tired of explaining to irate customers who believed the bank had disclosed private financial information that the information was publicly available.#160 So, in an attempt to deal with the situation, the banking industry in California, literally, wrote its own law.

SB 1150, which was passed by the California Legislature in 2004 and became effective January 1, 2005, places significant restrictions on the use of names, trade names, logos and taglines of lending intuitions as well as consumer loan information. The bill adds to California Business and Professions Code sections 14700 through 14704.#160

The new statutes prohibit the use of the name, trade name, logo, or tagline of a lender in a direct mail advertisement for financial services that is sent to#160 a consumer who has obtained a loan from the lender without the consent of the lender, unless the advertisement clearly and conspicuously states that the party is not sponsored by or affiliated with the lender and that the advertisement is not authorized by the lender, which must then identify by name.#160 This statement must be made in close proximity to, and in the same or larger font size as, the first and the most prominent use or uses of the name, trade name, logo, or tagline in the solicitation, including on an envelope or through an envelope window containing the advertisement.

The new statutes also prohibit the use of a consumer's loan number or loan amount, whether or not publicly available, in a solicitation for services or products without the consent of the consumer, unless the solicitation clearly and conspicuously states, when applicable, that the party is not sponsored by or affiliated with the lender and that the solicitation is not authorized by the lender, and states that the consumer's loan information was not provided by that lender.#160 This statement shall be made in close proximity to, and in the same or larger font as, the first and the most prominent use or uses of the consumer's loan information in the solicitation, including on an envelope or through an envelope window containing the solicitation.

In addition to the above, the new statutes prohibit the use of use the name of a lender or a name that is similar to that of a lender in a solicitation for financial services if that use could cause a reasonable person to be confused, mistaken, or deceived initially or otherwise as to either (a) the lender's sponsorship, affiliation, connection, or association with the sender; or (b) the lender's approval or endorsement of the sender.#160 The above "could cause" confusion standard differs from the traditional "likelihood of confusion" standard under both the Lanham Act and California's chapter of the Business and Professions Code that addresses Trademark Law.

This statute poses a number of problems.#160 First, it proposes a new standard for judging consumer confusion without giving the court guidance.#160 The courts have a well developed test for determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion in a trademark case; here they have nothing to guide them.#160 In addition, the new statute does not provide a mechanism for dealing with marks that lack distinctiveness and thus otherwise would not be entitled to a great deal of trademark protection.#160 For example, a financial institution could rename itself "The Bank" and then use B&P Code § 14700 et al to prevent other financial institutions from using the words "The Bank" because it could cause confusion.#160

The new statute makes it rather easy for a financial institution that believes another lender is using a mark that could cause confusion to obtain an injunction.#160 The aggrieved bank is not required to show actual damages in order to obtain an injunction as irreparable harm and interim harm are presumed.#160 In addition to injunctive relief, an aggrieved bank would be entitled to recover actual damages, if any, as well as reasonable attorney's fees.

Although the new law lessens the burden for bringing what otherwise could be considered a trademark action, it does attempt to preserve some fair use elements.#160 The new statutes provide that it is not a violation to use the name, trade name, logo, or tagline of a lender without the disclaimer statement described above in comparison advertising or in a manner that otherwise constitutes nominative fair use.

There have not yet been any lawsuits brought under this new law.#160 However, given the competitive nature of the home mortgage industry, it is only a matter of time.

Scott Hervey is a shareholder with Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Sproul.#160 Scott represents clients in numerous industries on intellectual property matters and issues concerning the Internet in both transactions and litigation.#160