In this week’s episode of The Briefing by the IP Law Blog, Scott Hervey and Josh Escovedo discuss the Ninth Circuit Ruling on the trademark aspects of Dr. Seuss “mashups.” They also provide a recap of last week’s episode, which covers the copyright aspects of the case.
In this episode of The Briefing by the IP Law Blog, Scott Hervey and Josh Escovedo discuss the Ninth Circuit Ruling on the copyright aspects of Dr. Seuss “mashups.” In the second episode of this two-part series, they discuss the trademark aspects of this case.
Continue Reading The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Dr Seuss Sets Photon Torpedoes on Star Trek Mashup in 9th Circuit Appeal (Part One, Copyright)
What happens when a junior trademark holder’s business becomes so popular and well known that it threatens to swamp the reputation of a senior mark holder? The senior mark holder brings a trademark infringement case alleging “reverse confusion” among its potential customers. This was the scenario the Ninth Circuit faced in its recent decision in: Ironhawk Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. (decided April 20, 2021).
Ironhawk develops computer software that uses compression technology to allow for the efficient transfer of data, especially in “bandwidth-challenged environments.” It has marketed its software under the name “SmartSync” since 2004 and obtained a trademark for SmartSync in 2007. It sells its software primarily to the United States Navy but, in 2013, sold its software to at least one major pharmacy chain.
Dropbox (as most lawyers know) produces cloud storage software that millions of users utilize around the world. One of Dropbox’s software features, “Smart Sync,” allows a user to see and access files in their Dropbox cloud account without using up any of the user’s hard drive storage. Dropbox launched its Smart Sync feature in 2017 and was previously aware of Ironhawk’s SmartSync mark. Ironhawk sued Dropbox for violations of the Lanham Act, i.e., trademark infringement, and unfair competition claiming that Dropbox’s use of the name “Smart Sync” intentionally infringed upon Ironhawk’s “SmartSync” trademark.
After some discovery, Dropbox moved for summary judgment. After applying the Sleekcraft factors [from AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-349 (9th Cir. 1979)], the district court granted summary judgment to Dropbox. The Court found that “the overwhelming balance of the Sleekcraft factors weighs against a likelihood of confusion” and that no reasonable jury would find any confusion. Ironhawk appealed to the Ninth Circuit from summary judgment.
Continue Reading The Sleekcraft Factors and “Reverse Confusion” Trademark Infringement
The Ninth Circuit recently considered an issue of first impression: What standard of review does an appellate court apply when reviewing a district court’s grant of summary judgment in a trademark infringement case on the equitable basis of the unclean hands doctrine. The Ninth Circuit faced this issue in the case titled: Metal Jeans, Inc.
Under the Copyright Act, an owner of a copyright suing for infringement may elect to seek statutory damages instead of actual damages. The amount of statutory damages under the Copyright Act are limited to $30,000 for innocent infringement and up to $150,000 for willful infringement. In Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., et al. (decided February 2, 2021), the Ninth Circuit was confronted with the issue of whether a plaintiff is entitled to multiple statutory damage awards where some of the defendants are found to be jointly and severally liable with each other.
Desire is a fabric supplier that had obtained and registered with the Copyright office “a two dimensional floral print textile design.” Shortly thereafter, a woman’s clothing manufacturing, Top Fashion, purchased a couple of yards of the fabric from Desire in order to secure a clothing order with Ashley Stewart, Inc., a woman’s clothing retailer. Unfortunately, Top Fashion and Desire had a dispute over the fabric’s price. Top Fashion then showed the design to Manna, a fabric designer, who in turn used a Chinese textile design firm to modify the design. That designer changed approximately 30-40% of the original design, and Manna subsequently registered the “new” design with the Copyright Office.
Continue Reading The Interplay Between Statutory Damages and Joint and Several Liability in a Copyright Infringement Action