Posts Tagged: "trademark infringement"

The idea of brand value is evolving. Trademark lawyers must be concerned with everything that contributes to the protection of a brand, not just its trademarks. Protecting a brand now includes a number of issues that were simply not relevant to the role twenty years ago, such as: trademarks in domain names; the use of trademarks online; trademarks used in social media handles; and trademarks being mentioned in general online commentary.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Southern District Court of New York in Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., a trademark infringement case in which summary judgment was granted to defendant My Other Bag (MOB) on the basis that their product – a cheap canvas bag that features a cartoonish depiction of plaintiff Louis Vuitton’s (LV) marks – satisfies the elements of a parody defense and is therefore unlikely to cause confusion despite surface-level similarities…. The outcome of the case in favor of the defendant represents a big win for defendants making use of the parody defense to target a famous trademark-holder.

For the year patent infringement cases dropped by 22 percent from the previous year, from 5,823 cases in 2015 down to 4,520 cases in 2016. 2016 actually saw the lowest number of patent infringement lawsuits filed since 2011, when 3,578 cases were filed. There was no month during 2016 where more than 460 patent suits were filed; both 2014 and 2015 had at least one month where more than 650 patent suits were filed in district court.

On August 8, 2016, plaintiff became aware of defendant’s unauthorized use of the Marilyn Monroe marks and likeness and sent a cease and desist letter. Defendant continued with their allegedly unauthorized activities, leading to the filing of the complaint that starts this legal dispute. It is worth noting, however, that the defendant did not use the name Marilyn Monroe in any of its marketing, packaging, or other branding. Any association to Marilyn Monroe is based solely on defendant’s use of her visual likeness.

Trademark injunctions must take into account both online promotion and future expansion plans. A narrowly-tailored geographically limited injunction can be particularly damaging to growing businesses if the business is forced to accept trademark confusion in the event of future expansion. The geographic scope of a trademark injunction should, therefore, carefully take into consideration the total services, activities, and growth plans of the successful plaintiff’s business endeavors.

Disney decided to add the State of Israel as a defendant since the Haifa port Customs unit that held the allegedly infringing goods is an Israeli government entity. Adding the state as a defendant, albeit a technical one, would allow, according to the Israeli territorial jurisdiction regulations, the Tel Aviv District Court to have jurisdiction… The Court rejected Disney’s claim and transferred the case to Haifa. In his decision, Judge Maor stated that ‘the dispute is between the Petitioners and the Plaintiff. The State is not a necessary and not a substantial party to the disagreements between them, but merely a “technical” one since it is holding the allegedly infringing goods…’.

On October 5, 2016, a jury in Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. – litigated before Judge Swain of the Southern District Court of New York – awarded Tiffany & Co. (Tiffany) $8.25 million in punitive damages for willful and bad faith infringement of their trademark by defendant Costco Wholesale Corp. (Costco). This award, in combination with an earlier award of $5.5 million in profits and statutory damages, brings the total damages owed by Costco to $13.75 million. The case is particularly notable for several reasons, but specifically because punitive damages were awarded.

You’ve selected a unique trademark, marketed and sold products under the brand, and continue to build up a base of satisfied customers. But then a new company emerges with a very similar trademark, piggybacking on your success. Even your customers are outraged and post comments about your companies’ similar trademarks. You’re delighted, but can you skip the survey and use these internet comments as evidence of confusion? This article addresses the admissibility of internet evidence and its probative value.

Kanye West, ran into some legal trouble when he was sued for trademark infringement by Michael Medina for using the word “Loisaidas” in the title. Medina began using the name “Loisaidas” in 2008 to refer to a Latin band that he had formed. The band originated from Manhattan’s Lower East Side, for which the name came from, as “Loisaidas” is a Spanish slang term for “lower east siders.” … However, the title “Loisaidas” was not found to be explicitly misleading such to induce members of the public to believe the “work” was either created by or about Medina’s music group. In October 2016, Medina appealed the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The lawsuit filed by Lucasfilm names a series of defendants including Michael Brown, also known as Flynn Michael, a resident of Oakland, CA, and the operator of a number of businesses including New York Jedi, Lightsaber Academy as well as Thrills and Skills. The complaint also lists a number of websites with similar names operated by the defendants. Lucasfilm notes that the defendants are in the business of offering lightsaber classes to students for improving their skills with lightsaber equipment and perform as a “Jedi.” For example, the website for New York Jedi offers a series of what it calls “light saber choreo classes” for teens and adults. As the about section of its website states, “while we are not specifically Star Wars-centric, we do rely heavily on many of the principles and training used by that of the Jedi Order.”

The $41.4 million settlement ends a legal clash that had previously led to the largest damages award for corrective advertising ever. The jury verdict was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.) and the settlement ends an appeal filed by U-Haul in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (11th Cir.).

Trader Joe’s sued Hallatt (d/b/a Pirate Joe’s) for trademark infringement in the Western District of Washington, invoking the court’s federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. Trader Joe’s alleged that: (1) Hallatt misled consumers into falsely believing Pirate Joe’s was authorized or approved by Trader Joe’s; (2) utilized a confusingly similar “South Pacific” trade dress for his Pirate Joe’s store; (3) displayed Trader Joe’s trademarks in connection with the sale of products at Pirate Joe’s; and (4) resold Trader Joe’s products without authorization and without adherence to Trader Joe’s’ strict quality control practices. Trader Joe’s claimed Hallatt’s behavior diluted its trademarks, confused consumers, and damaged Trader Joe’s reputation by associating it with high price, lower quality products. Trader Joe’s sought damages and to permanently enjoin Hallatt from reselling its goods or using its trademarks in Canada.

hipotle Mexican Grill is gearing up to launch a new franchise brand of restaurants. The first Tasty Made will open this fall in Lancaster, OH, and locations will feature menus focusing on burgers, hand-cut fries and milkshakes. As Tasty Made has been making headlines, a Boston-based chain of burger fast food restaurants has raised a legal issue over trademarks, which it believes Chipotle is infringing. Reports indicate that Tasty Burger has issued a cease and desist letter to Chipotle which charges the latter company with using a brand name and logos that are similar to marks held by Tasty Burger. Tasty Burger operates six locations, including four Boston stores and two in Washington, D.C. The burger chain is alleging that not only are the names very similar but the color scheme and shape of the logos share many similarities as well.

The Olympic Games will draw the attention of the world under a banner of honest competition and camaraderie. However, many have accused the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) of conduct not in keeping with the open spirit of the Olympic Games. In the run-up to the Olympics, companies have reported receiving cease and desist letters from the USOC. These letters claim that use of the USOC’s trademarks in social media posts infringe on the USOC’s federal rights.

When looking at damages awarded in trademark infringement cases filed since 2005 and terminating between 2009 and 2016, fashion brands have taken in the highest award totals. The top spot here belongs to Parisian fashion brand Chanel, which has been awarded nearly $1 billion dollars from 160 infringement cases resulting in awards out of the 330 cases filed by Chanel. That’s almost double the $523 million awarded to Burberry Limited but its sibling Burberry Limited UK was awarded $416.6 million and those totals were awarded over the course of a combined 12 infringement cases. In terms of damage totals, there’s another steep drop to Gucci of Florence, Italy, which was awarded $207.7 million over the course of 26 cases.