Posts Tagged: "trademark infringement"

Fashion is a brand-driven industry, and few brands in the fashion space carry the same cachet as Chanel. But how much control do brands like Chanel have over merchants who resell name-brand items in the secondary market? The answer, according to a federal jury in the Southern District of New York, is “Quite a bit.” The jury awarded Chanel $4 million in statutory damages on Chanel’s claims of trademark infringement, false association, unfair competition, and false advertising related to What Goes Around Comes Around’s (WGACA) reselling and marketing of Chanel products. The plaintiffs prevailed on all claims.

On December 27, less than one week before the National Hockey League’s (NHL) Seattle Kraken defeated the Vegas Golden Knights in the 2024 Winter Classic, a lawsuit was filed in the Western District of Washington against the Kraken. The lawsuit alleges that Seattle’s NHL franchise wore an infringing jersey during the Winter Classic, and has sold infringing merchandise, after shutting out the legitimate business interests of a passionate Seattle-area fan who revived that city’s championship legacy more than 90 years after the previous franchise folded.

The Lanham Act provides for special remedies in cases of trademark infringement “involving” the use of a “counterfeit” mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), (c); 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Absent “extenuating circumstances,” if the use of a counterfeit mark is intentional and knowing, the Act requires entry of judgment of three times the amount of actual damages or profits found, as well as an award of attorney’s fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b). Alternatively, in any case of infringement “involving” a counterfeit mark, the Act provides for awards of statutory damages of up to $200,000; it provides for statutory damages of up to $2,000,000 if the use of the counterfeit mark was willful. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)…. In our view, a straightforward interpretation of the Act allows access to the special remedies in cases that involve knock-off products, as well as cases where an identical logo or word mark is used on the same type of product that is in the plaintiff’s trademark registration, even if the defendant’s products and/or their packaging do not resemble the plaintiff’s products.

A trademark lawsuit filed by popular grocery store chain, Trader Joe’s, against a cryptocurrency platform called “Trader Joe”—which the complaint alleges is a deliberate reference to the supermarket—has come to light this week. Trader Joe’s claims that the crypto firm buried its origin story in order to win international litigation over the domain name, traderjoexyz.com. Trader Joe’s has offered grocery services under the mark TRADER JOE’S for more than 50 years. According to the lawsuit, a co-founder of the crypto company Trader Joe, going by the handle “cryptofish,” admitted in a Substack publication that the company’s name originally derived from the name of the Trader Joe’s supermarket chain.

Following Elon Musk’s bold rebrand of social media platform Twitter, the many lawsuits that have been expected have begun to roll in. In what is said to be the first, X Social Media, LLC has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, charging Musk’s X Corp. with willful trademark infringement, as well as common law violations under Florida competition, trademark and service mark laws and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit yesterday backed a Georgia district court’s finding that Diamond J Wholesale LLC and its owner, Raj Solomon, willfully infringed trademarks owned by Top Tobacco, L.P., Republic Technologies (NA), LLC, and Republic Tobacco, L.P. (Top Tobacco). The ruling upholds an $11 million verdict in favor of the tobacco companies. A jury in the U.S. District Court of the District of Georgia awarded Top Tobacco $11 million in damages against the wholesale company and its owner in March of 2022.

Last Saturday, my friends and I practically bounced our way to the movie theatre, joining throngs of pink-clad youngsters to watch the year’s biggest global blockbuster: ‘Barbie.’ Well, Barbie has done it all, honestly. She has not only achieved unparalleled success as a toy, with over a billion units sold worldwide, but now as a movie, amassing an impressive $365 million global opening. She has defied traditional stereotypes by promoting career-focus and self-sufficiency, challenged the motherhood-aspiration notion for young women, and inspired Greta Gerwig’s modern take on the iconic character. However, we often overlook the doll’s profound contributions to the evolution of intellectual property (IP) jurisprudence, from its genesis to its movie adaptation.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled today in Abitron Austria v. Hetronic International that Sections 1114(1)(a) and 1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial in nature and that “‘use in commerce’ provides the dividing line between foreign and domestic applications of these provisions.” The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which upheld a $96 million damages award for Hetronic, was thus vacated and remanded. Justice Alito authored the opinion for the Court and Justices Jackson and Sotomayor each filed concurring opinions—though Sotomayor’s concurrence reads more like a dissent.  

Just days after a complaint was filed against restaurant chain Sweetgreen by Chipotle Mexican Grill for trademark infringement, dilution, and deceptive business practices, Sweetgreen has changed the name of its offending product in order to reach possible settlement. Last week, Chipotle filed a complaint against Sweetgreen for naming its new menu item  “Chipotle Chicken Burrito Bowl”. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. et al. v. Sweetgreen Inc., case number 8:23-cv-00596, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Chipotle has numerous registered trademarks for variations on the word CHIPOTLE in relation to its restaurant and food, including stylized versions in various fonts. Prior to filing the complaint, Chipotle sent Sweetgreen a cease-and-desist letter asking the salad chain to drop the word “chipotle” from the name, which is the usual practice in trademark related lawsuits.

Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari filed by famed whiskey brand owner Jack Daniel’s Properties. The petition filed by Jack Daniel’s appealed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s March 2020 ruling that a “Bad Spaniels” dog toy marketed by VIP Products was an expressive work entitled to First Amendment protections against trademark infringement liability under the Rogers test. On January 18, a series of 16 amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court, the vast majority of which urged the nation’s highest court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and limit the application of the Rogers test to clearly artistic works and exclude consumer products that happened to have some humorous expression. Several amici also pushed back on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that VIP Products’ use of Jack Daniel’s marks was noncommercial.

Engagement in proactive IP litigation by global companies is the bedrock of trademark enforcement, and Adidas is no stranger to this strategy. Since 2008, this athleisure accessories manufacturer has consistently protected its intellectual property by signing over 200 settlement agreements and fighting more than 90 court battles. Most recently, on  January 12, 2023, Adidas’s efforts to sue Thom Browne Inc., a Zegna subsidiary, for trademark infringement of its ‘three-stripes logo’ was foiled. The damages claim of around $7.8 million, or £6.4 million, backfired on the German sportswear giant when it was denied by an eight-person Manhattan jury.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit earlier this week ruled in favor of Viacom in a trademark fight over the media conglomerate’s Floribama Shore reality television show. MGFB, the company that filed the appeal, owns the “FLORA-BAMA” trademark and owns and operates the Flora-Bama Lounge on the border of Florida and Alabama. The company filed a cease-and-desist letter in 2017 when Viacom first aired Floribama Shore in 2017. The appeals court judges cited the First Amendment as protecting Viacom’s right to artistic use of “Floribama”. “Creative works of artistic expression are firmly ensconced within the protections of the First Amendment,” wrote the judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted a petition filed in August this year by Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. seeking clarification on whether the First Amendment protects VIP Products, LLC, a maker of dog toys that made humorous use of Jack Daniel’s trademarks for commercial purposes, against claims of infringement and dilution. The High Court previously denied Jack Daniel’s petition in January of 2021, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “summarily affirmed” the district court’s summary judgment ruling for VIP on remand. In its ruling in 2020, the Ninth Circuit said VIP’s dog toy mimicking a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle was an expressive work entitled to First Amendment protection, reversing the district court’s initial holding that the toy infringed and diluted Jack Daniel’s marks and remanding the case back to the district court for a determination on the merits of the infringement claim.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday affirmed the dismissal of Metamorfoza’s trademark infringement and unfair competition claims against Big Funny over a trademark that included the disclaimed phrase “Museum of Illusions.” Big Funny also cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees, but the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court, finding that it had acted within its discretion in denying fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) because the case was not “exceptional.” Big Funny and Metamorfoza both operate multiple museums called “Museum of Illusions” in the United States. Big Funny operates museums in California and Florida, while Metamorfoza has museums in New York, Missouri and Texas.