Las Vegas Trademark Attorney

USPTO issues Examination Guidelines for Post-Farm Bill Examination of Trademarks for Cannabis and Cannabis-Related Goods and Services

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Fri, 03 May 2019 23:20:00 +0000

After months of uncertainty regarding how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) was going to be handling trademark applications that recite cannabis-related goods and services following the enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill, the PTO issued Examination Guide 01-19 on May 2, 2018 to provide some guidance for trademark applicants and trademark attorneys moving forward.

Prior to the enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill, the PTO typically refused registration of any trademark application the basis that use of a mark in connection with anything relating to cannabis was a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and therefore, the mark was not in lawful use in commerce (nor could the applicant have had a bona-fide intent to use such mark in lawful commerce).

However, on December 20, 2018, 2018 Farm Bill was signed into law and amended the CSA to remove hemp from the definition of marijuana, and thus cannabis plants and derivatives (most notably CBD) that contain no more than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dry-weight basis are no longer controlled substances under the CSA.

For trademark applications filed on or after December 20, 2018 which identify cannabis-related goods (including CBD), the 2018 Farm Bill now removes the CSA as a ground for refusal of registration so long as the goods are derived from “hemp.” Nonetheless, the PTO will require the identification of goods to specify that they contain less than 0.3% THC so that the goods set forth in the trademark application are compliant with federal law.

However, for applications filed before December 20, 2018 that identify goods encompassing cannabis-related products or CBD, registration will be refused due to the unlawful use or lack of bona fide intent to use in lawful commerce under the CSA on the date the application was filed. The PTO maintains that such pre-Farm Bill applications did not have a valid basis to support registration at the time of filing because the goods violated federal law at the time.

However, because the goods are now potentially lawful if they are derived from “hemp” and contain less than 0.3% THC, the PTO will be allowing applicants the option of amending the filing date and filing basis of the application to overcome the CSA as a ground of refusal. Applicant’s will have to specifically state for the record that such a change to the filing date is being authorized and must establish a valid filing basis under 37 C.F.R. §2.34 by satisfying the relevant requirements. If the application was originally filed based on Section 1(a) use-in-commerce, then applicants will have to amend the basis to instead be based on Section 1(b) intent to use – presumably followed by a subsequent filing of an amendment to allege use. [Comment – this is what the Examination Guideline states regarding use-in-commerce , but I’ve personally reached out to the PTO regarding this point as it seems that if the applicant is amending the filing date, but the applicant can claim use-in-commerce as of that December 20, 2018 filing date, then why can’t the applicant leave the application basis as Section 1(a) use-in-commerce based on the new filing date … to be continued.]

Applicants will also be required to amend the identification of goods to specify that the CBD or cannabis products contain less than 0.3% THC. The PTO also appears to be recommending that in lieu of amending the filing basis, applicants could simply abandon its old application and file a new one.

However, even though cannabis-related goods may now be legal under the CSA, the PTO notes that not all goods for CBD or hemp-derived products are lawful following the 2018 Farm Bill. Most notably, the use of CBD in foods or dietary supplements may still violate the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act on the basis that the use of a drug or substance undergoing clinical investigations (as CBD currently is since it is an active ingredient in FDA-approved drugs and is a substance undergoing clinical investigations) without approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violates the FDCA. The 2018 Farm Bill explicitly preserved FDA’s authority to regulate products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds under the FDCA. Thus, registration of trademarks for foods, beverages, dietary supplements, or pet treats containing CBD will still be refused as unlawful under the FDCA, even if derived from hemp, as such goods may not be introduced lawfully into interstate commerce.

Gatorade's Fair Use Defense Defeats SportFuel Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Wed, 27 Jun 2018 23:03:00 +0000

On June 14, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of PepsiCo, Inc. and its subsidiary, The Gatorade Company (“Gatorade”), against the trademark infringement claims brought by SportFuel, Inc. (“SportFuel”), the owner of the registered trademark SPORTFUEL, over Gatorade’s use of the advertising slogan “The Sports Fuel Company.” SportFuel, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc. et al, Case No. 16-cv-07868 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (decision here).

SportFuel is a Chicago-based sports nutrition and wellness consulting firm that also sells a variety of SportFuel-branded dietary supplement powders and capsules. SportFuel owns two registered trademarks for the name SPORTFUEL – one for “food nutrition consultation,” “nutrition counseling,” and “providing information about dietary supplements and nutrition” (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,495,513) and another for “dietary supplements” and “sports drinks enhanced with vitamins” (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,832,297).

Gatorade began using the phrase “sports fuel” internally in 2012 in marketing presentations describing their “Sports Fuel” products (which it defined as products designed to improve athletic performance in contrast to sports nutrition products) and describing the growing “Sports Fuel” product market. In 2015, with full knowledge of SportFuel’s trademark rights, Gatorade began a nationwide rebranding campaign using the slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company.” Gatorade obtained a trademark registration for GATORADE THE SPORTS FUEL COMPANY in 2016 (Reg. No. 5,025,026) – although it included a disclaimer of any exclusive rights to “The Sports Fuel Company” apart from the mark as shown in response to an office action which found “The Sports Fuel Company” to be merely descriptive. Gatorade maintained that it did not use the slogan on any product packaging or labeling – rather, its products used the GATORADE trademark or the G-bolt design mark.

SportFuel filed its lawsuit against Gatorade and PepsiCo in August 2016 alleging causes of action for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act as well as related claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition under state law and common law. Gatorade filed a motion for summary judgment on all of SportFuel’s claims on two separate grounds – 1) SportFuel has not presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could find likelihood of confusion (a necessary element to all of SportFuel’s claims) and 2) Gatorade’s use of the term “Sports Fuel” in the slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” is protected under the fair use doctrine. The court granted Gatorade’s motion entirely on the grounds of fair use and did not address the likelihood of confusion argument.

The court first identified the fair use defense and its elements:

Under section 1115(b)(4) of Lanham Act, however, the “fair use” defense allows a junior user of a mark to use the mark “in good faith in its descriptive sense, as opposed to its trademark sense.” Ideal Indus., Inc. v. Gardner Bender, Inc., 612 F.2d 1018, 1027 (7th Cir. 1979); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4); Sorensen v. WD-40 Co., 792 F.3d at 722. The fair use defense “is based on the principle that no one should be able to appropriate descriptive language through trademark registration.” Packman, 267 F.3d at 639 (citation omitted). To prevail on a fair use defense, the defendant must show that (1) it did not use the mark as a trademark; (2) the mark is descriptive of the defendant’s goods or services, and; (3) it used the mark “fairly and in good faith.” Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 722.

With respect to the first element of the fair use defense – showing that it did not use “Sports Fuel” as a trademark – Gatorade argued that it used the term “Sports Fuel” in its slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” to describe the type of products it sells rather than to signify the source of the products. Even though there was no dispute that Gatorade uses its name and G-bolt design mark on its product packaging and advertising, this did not preclude a finding that Gatorade’s use of the words “Sports Fuel” could be viewed as a source identifier of Gatorade’s products. Nonetheless, in analyzing Gatorade’s actual use of the slogan “The Sports Fuel Company,” the court focused heavily on how the word “Gatorade” typically appeared above the slogan and in a much more noticeably larger and bolder font. And in those instances where the word “Gatorade” appeared on the same line and in the same font as the slogan, the word “Gatorade” was bolded so that it would stand out from the slogan.

The court found that “The fact that the Gatorade house mark appears more prominently than the rest of the slogan reduces the likelihood that Gatorade is using “Sports Fuel” as an indicator of source.” The court rejected SportFuel’s argument that a Gatorade executive had admitted using “Sports Fuel” as a trademark given that he was not a trademark expert and just giving an opinion. Moreover, the fact that Gatorade had sought to register “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” as a trademark did not change the court’s analysis given Gatorade’s express disclaimer of “The Sports Fuel Company” as part of its trademark registration.

With respect to the second element of the fair use defense – showing that Gatorade’s use of “Sports Fuel” was in a manner which is descriptive of its goods or services – Gatorade’s argument that its use of “Sports Fuel” would clearly be recognized by consumers as descriptive of “foods and beverages designed to be consumer before, during, or after sports activity” was bolstered by the fact that the PTO had also determined that the phrase “The Sports Fuel Company” was descriptive and had to be disclaimed by Gatorade in its trademark registration application (“As SPORTS FUEL is commonly used in reference to sports nutrition, consumers encountering the wording THE SPORTS FUEL COMPANY in the proposed mark would readily understand it to mean that the goods are provided by a company that provides sports nutrition.”). In addition, Gatorade’s internal marketing documents regarding the slogan “The Sports Fuel Company” had identified “Sports Fuel products” as “[i]tems specifically designed to improve athletic performance.” As such, the court found that Gatorade’s use of “Sports Fuel” was in a manner which is descriptive of its goods or services and further found that SportFuel had not presented any evidence giving rise to a genuine factual dispute regarding whether Gatorade used the term “Sports Fuel” to describe the nature of the products it sells.

Finally, with respect to the third element of the fair use defense – showing that Gatorade used “Sports Fuel” fairly and in good faith only to describe its own goods or services – Gatorade argued that there was no genuine factual issue in dispute given that “sports fuel” did accurately describe Gatorade’s expanded product line, Gatorade disclaimed exclusive rights to “The Sports Fuel Company” in its registered trademark, and the concurrent use of its famous GATORADE mark and/or G-bolt design mark in conjunction with the advertising slogan left no doubt regarding the source of Gatorade’s products.

SportFuel tried to argue that summary judgment was not warranted on the issue of Gatorade’s intent and good faith because Gatorade was aware of SportFuel’s marks prior to beginning public use of its slogan and because Gatorade did not stop using the slogan even after SportFuel had put Gatorade on notice regarding its claims of infringement. However, the court held that “evidence that Gatorade had knowledge of SportFuel’s mark is insufficient to permit a reasonable inference of bad faith” and Sport Fuel “must point to something more that suggests subjective bad faith.” Further, the court held that “the fact that Gatorade did not stop using the slogan after SportFuel filed this lawsuit alleging infringement is not probative of bad faith” since Gatorade believed its use did not constitute infringement and there had been no prior adjudication of the issue. The court found that SportFuel failed to offer any evidence that would support a reasonable inference that Gatorade acted in bad faith.

The court concluded that even with all reasonable inferences drawn in SportFuel’s favor, “no reasonable jury could find that Gatorade’s use of the phrase “Sports Fuel” in its slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” is anything other than a fair use.” As such, the court concluded that Gatorade’s use of “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” is protected under the fair use doctrine and granted summary judgment in Gatorade’s favor on all of SportFuel’s claims. And having granted summary judgment based on fair use, the court chose not to address the parties’ arguments on the issue of likelihood of confusion. See KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 124 (2004) (a defendant invoking the fair use defense need not establish that its use of the mark in question will not cause consumer confusion).

Dr. Seuss Trademark Claims Against Parody Book Title Dismissed

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Thu, 24 May 2018 20:09:00 +0000

On May 21, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the creators of a Dr. Seuss-Star Trek mash-up parody book entitled “Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go!” (the “Boldly” book) against trademark infringement claims brought by Dr. Seuss Enterprises LP (the owner of the intellectual property rights associated with the Dr. Seuss books). See Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. ComicMix LLC et al, Case No. 16-cv-02779 (S.D. Cal.) (decision here).

Previously, Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s trademark infringement claims should be dismissed because Defendants’ title choice was protected by the First Amendment under the limiting construction provided for in the landmark case Rogers v. Grimaldi, 75 F.2d. 994 (2^nd Cir. 1989):

Under the Rogers two-prong test, the title of an expressive work does not violate the Lanham Act “unless the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.” Mattel Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 902 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rogers, 875 F.2d at 999). This test “insulates from restriction titles with at least minimal artistic relevance that are ambiguous or only implicitly misleading but leaves vulnerable to claims of deception titles that are explicitly misleading as to source or content, or that have no artistic relevance at all.” Rogers, 875 F.2d at 1000.

Defendants had argued that there is nothing misleading about its “Boldly” book title and that the use of the title was directly relevant to the underlying creative work. Plaintiff focused its opposition on a specific portion of the Rogers decision – footnote 5 – to argue that this case was different. That footnote 5 stated that the outlined “limiting construction would not apply to misleading titles that are confusingly similar to other titles. The public interest in sparing consumers this type of confusion outweighs the slight public interest in permitting authors to use such titles.” Rogers, 875 F.2d at 999 n.5.

In its order on the motion to dismiss, the Court found that Defendants’ invocation of Plaintiff’s trademarks was relevant to the book’s artistic purposes and that the title did not explicitly mislead as to its source or content. However, with respect to the footnote exception, while the Ninth Circuit had not directly addressed such exception, because other district courts had determined that the exception is applicable, the Court decided that it would not dismiss Plaintiff’s trademark claims on First Amendment grounds pursuant to Rogers.

However, on November 16, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the case Twentieth Century Fox Television a Division of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Empire Distribution, Inc., 875 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2017). This case involved a dispute between a record label named Empire Distribution and the companies behind the television show Empire (and its portrayal of a fictional music label named “Empire Enterprises”). As expected, the Ninth Circuit invoked the Rogers test in deciding if the allegedly infringing use of EMPIRE as the title of an expressive work was protected by the First Amendment.

Empire Distribution had argued that the limiting construction of the Rogers test did not apply because of footnote 5. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected Empire’s argument for an exception based on footnote 5 – nothing that the footnote had only ever been cited once by an appellate court, and even then the Second Circuit had rejected its applicability. 875 F.3d at 1197 (citing Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ’g Grp., Inc., 886 F.2d 490 (2d Cir. 1989)). The Ninth Circuit stated “[t]he exception the footnote suggests may be ill-advised or unnecessary” because identifying confusingly similar titles “has the potential to duplicate either the likelihood-of-confusion test or the second prong of Rogers” and “conflicts with our precedents, which ‘dictate that we apply the Rogers test in [Lanham Act] § 43(a) cases involving expressive works.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235, 1241–42 (9th Cir. 2013)).

With this revised interpretation of the Rogers test in hand, the Court then reevaluated Defendants’ use of the Boldly title under the First Amendment. The Court reaffirmed its previous findings that Defendants’ invocation of Plaintiff’s alleged trademark is relevant to Boldly’s artistic purpose

As well-put by the court in CI Games S.A. v. Destination Films, No. 2:16-cv-5719-SVW-JC, 2016 WL 9185391 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016): “It is clear to the Court that the artistic relevance prong of the Rogers test is meant to ensure that the title in question uses the potential trademark to express or describe its own content rather than merely to attract notoriety using a trademark in its title that is irrelevant to the underlying work.” Id. at *6.

As for the second prong – whether the alleged use explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work – the question is “whether there was an ‘explicit indication,’ ‘overt claim,’ or ‘explicit misstatement’ that caused . . . consumer confusion.” Brown, 724 F.3d at 1245. (quoting Rogers, 875 F.2d at 1001). The Court noted that not only did no such statement appear in Defendants’ work, but that Defendants actually went out of their way on the Boldly copyright page to inform readers that it was a work of parody that was not associated with or endorsed by Dr. Seuss. While Plaintiff disputed the effectiveness of such disclaimers, “what cannot be disputed is that there is no statement in Boldly to the contrary, i.e., that the work is associated with or endorsed by Plaintiff.” (emphasis in original). Moreover, Defendants’ use of similar text and design for their book title is not enough to be an “explicit misstatement.” Without any clear evidence that the title of Boldly explicitly misleads as to the source of the work, the Court found that the second prong had been satisfied by Defendants.

With both prongs of the Rogers test satisfied, the Court ruled that Defendants were entitled to a judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s trademark claims relating to the title of Boldly. While Plaintiff had also pled trademark rights in the font and illustration style, because the Court had not determined if Plaintiff had protectable trademark rights in the font and illustration style of the Dr. Seuss book and only analyzed the title of the book (which it had previously determined was a protectable trademark when it analyzed Defendants’ Boldly book title), the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s trademark claims was limited to just those relating to the title of Boldly.

Different Firm Name, Same Great Las Vegas Trademark Attorney

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Wed, 02 May 2018 02:24:00 +0000

After years of contemplation, I finally decided to go out on my own and established my own law practice which will continue representing clients in connection with various intellectual property matters (trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and domain names) as well as general business legal matters.

My new contact information is as follows:

Ryan Gile

Gile Law Group Ltd.

10655 Park Run Drive, Suite 230

Las Vegas, Nevada 89144

Phone: (702) 703-7288

E-mail: glg@gilelawgroup.com

Website: www.GileLawGroup.com

The Rat Pack is . . . Generic! -- Ninth Circuit Affirms Nevada District Court’s Decision that “The Rat Pack” is Generic in connection with “Rat Pack” tribute shows

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:45:00 +0000

The title of this blog post could also be entitled “How I won at the Ninth Circuit without doing a thing.”

On February 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in the appeal that was filed in 2013 by TRP Entertainment, LLC, seeking to overturn the Nevada district court’s 2009 decision which found that the “Rat Pack” was generic and ordered a disclaimer of the term “RAT PACK” on TRP’s trademark registration for “THE RAT PACK IS BACK.” A copy of the decision can be downloaded here. See TRP Entertainment, LLC v. BC Entertainment et al., Case No. 13-16754 (9th Cir.)

In upholding the lower court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit found that “the record demonstrates that the term ‘The Rat Pack’ describes a type of live entertainment show and does not identify any particular producer of a Rat Pack tribute show.” The Court noted that even TRP had referred to “Rat Pack performances as a ‘genre’ of entertainment.” As such, the district court did not err in determining that “The Rat Pack” is generic in the context of live shows about or in tribute to members of the Rat Pack. The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a disclaimer of the term “The Rat Pack” modifying TRP’s trademark registration (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1119, which allows a court to order the modification of a trademark registration to include a disclaimer of generic components). As such, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment and remanded the case back to the district court to instruct the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to enter a disclaimer of the term “THE RAT PACK” on TRP’s trademark registration for ““THE RAT PACK IS BACK.”

In order to understand how this victory is one for which I can claim some credit, I will defer to my prior detailed post on the district court’s decision when it was first handed down. I was no longer Defendants’ counsel of record on the case at the time the decision was handed down, but it was the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that I prepared and filed on behalf of the Defendants in that case that the district court ultimately ruled on in deciding that “Rat Pack” was generic – a decision that the Ninth Circuit has now affirmed.

Moreover, I was not involved in any briefings relative to TRP’s appeal, so that is why I write that I won at the Ninth Circuit without doing a thing – because indeed I did not. In fact, the Ninth Circuit ruled against TRP despite having no substantive opposing briefs filed by the Defendants. Original Defendant Barrie Cunningham did send a one page letter to the Ninth Circuit asking for the lower court’s decision to be upheld, but otherwise, no briefs were filed by the Defendants arguing in favor of upholding the lower court’s decision – which makes the decision of the Ninth Circuit to uphold the decision anyway all the more sweeter. This victory for Defendants also demonstrates that just because no one opposes you on appeal does not necessarily mean you are going to win your appeal.

So short of an appeal by TRP of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court or possibly a request for reconsideration with the Ninth Circuit, this decision marks the end of the great “Rat Pack Generic” saga that started as far back as 13 years ago. The glory days of TRP claiming to have exclusive rights to the term “THE RAT PACK” in connection with a “Rat Pack” tribute show – much like the “Rat Pack” itself – is forever gone.

Sam’s Club Loses Motion to Dismiss David Yurman Trademark Lawsuit Based on First Sale Doctrine Defense

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Fri, 10 Apr 2015 23:26:00 +0000

In September 2014, luxury jewelry designer David Yurman filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Sam’s Club over the alleged unauthorized sales of David Yurman jewelry at Sam’s Club stores. See David Yurman Enterprises LLC and David Yurman IP LLC v. Sam’s East, Inc. and Sam’s West Inc., Case No. 14-cv-02553 (S.D. Tex. Filed September 4, 2014). Click here for a news article on the complaint.

In the complaint, Yurman alleged that Sam’s Club, through its purchase and resale of genuine David Yurman jewelry from authorized David Yurman retailers, infringed on Yurman’s trademark rights to the DAVID YURMAN mark as well as intentionally interfered with Yurman’s contractual relations with its authorized retailers.

Sam’s Club filed a motion to dismiss Yurman’s complaint for failure to state a claim, primarily on the basis that its sale of Yurman’s genuine jewelry was protected by the “first sale doctrine.” On April 9, 2015, the Court denied Sam’s Club’s motion to dismiss finding that Yurman’s complaint had sufficiently pled causes of actions for trademark infringement (sufficient to overcome Sam’s Club assertion of the “first sale doctrine” defense) as well as for tortious interference with contractual relations. See David Yurman Enterprises LLC et al v. Sam’s East, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-02553 (S.D. Tex. April 9, 2015) (court order here)

As part of Yurman’s complaint, Yurman asserted that it only sells its jewelry through its own boutiques and authorized retailers who sign an Authorized Retailer Agreement that “expressly prohibits the transshipment, diversion, or transfer of any Yurman products to any other party.” Yurman further asserted that Yurman’s Authorized Retailer Agreement and the prohibition against selling its jewelry to any other parties were well known in the retail industry, especially retailers of jewelry products. As such, Sam’s Club was well aware of the prohibition (or certainly became aware after Sam’s Club was notified by Yurman to stop such purchasing), and yet intentionally sought out and purchased Yurman jewelry from one or more of Yurman’s authorized retailers despite knowing that such retailers were prohibited from selling the jewelry to Sam’s Club. There was no dispute that Sam’s Club was selling authentic Yurman jewelry products at its stores and that Sam’s Club is not a Yurman-authorized retailer of its jewelry.

Most importantly, Yurman alleged that “Sam’s Club prominently advertised and promoted the jewelry in its stores and on its website, in an effort to drive traffic to its stores” and that in its stores, Sam’s Club was “displaying Yurman products, placards and packaging displaying the Yurman trademark” and supposedly even Yurman-issued certificates of authenticity. Yurman alleged that Sam’s Club’s actions created “the false impression that Sam’s Club is among Yurman’s network of authorized retailers, and has caused consumer confusion and disappointment.” (e.g., unlike an authorized Yurman retailer, Sam’s Club, at the point of purchase, was not being able to service customers purchasing or attempting to purchase DAVID YURMAN jewelry products sold in its stores).

In support of its trademark infringement claims, Yurman basically argued that Sam’s Club’s “display of the jewelry and its packaging; the prominent placement of placards, certificates, and other Yurman materials; and the prominent advertisement of Yurman products in its stores and on its website to create foot traffic to the stores, all create the false impression that Sam’s Club is authorized to sell Yurman products and that its products have been sourced directly from Yurman.” In response, Sam’s Club maintained that Yurman’s trademark infringement claims were barred by the “first sale doctrine” (i.e., because Sam’s Club was selling genuine Yurman jewelry identified by the David Yurman trademark, there is no potential for consumer confusion regarding the source of the goods).

The Court stated the following regarding the “first sale doctrine” defense:

Under the rule “a distributor who resells trademarked goods without change is not liable for trademark infringement.” Mary Kay, Inc. v. Weber, 301F. Supp. 2d 839, 852 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). However, there are two exceptions to the rule: 1) “[t]he doctrine does not protect alleged infringers who sell trademarked goods that are ‘materially’ different from those sold by the trademark owner;” and 2) the doctrine will not protected alleged infringers “if they have given off the false impression that they are affiliated with or sponsored by” the trademark owner. Id. The second exception is relevant to this case. Under this rule, an unauthorized dealer may use a mark to advertise or promote truthfully that it sells a certain trademarked product, so long as the advertisement or promotion does not suggest affiliation or endorsement by the mark holder. Id. (quoting Fetzer, 381 F.3d at 484).

In analyzing whether Yurman had pled sufficient facts to show that the use of the Yurman trademark creates a likelihood of confusion as to an affiliation between Sam’s Club and Yurman, the Court noted that “Yurman has pled that the stores had Yurman products and materials prominently displayed, which suggests the Yurman products were highlighted more than other products. . .[and] that Sam’s Club had prominent advertisements of the Yurman products on its website in an effort to drive foot traffic to its stores, which suggests the Yurman jewelry was featured in a way that other jewelry was not. The context of the use was that Sam’s Club was featuring Yurman products more aggressively and prominently than other products to gain more traffic to its stores.” Because the “[p]rominent and pervasive use of a mark will suggest affiliation,” the Court found Yurman had pled sufficient facts to state claim for likelihood of confusion.

As for Sam’s Club reliance on the “first sale doctrine” defense, “the defense must be apparent on the face of the claim, and the rule does not apply if Sam’s Club has given off the false impression that it is affiliated with Yurman.” Sam’s Club relied heavily upon another case, Matrix Essentials, Inc. v. Emporium Drug Mart, Inc., of Lafayette, 988 F.2d 587, 593 (5th Cir.1993), which held that “the mere unauthorized stocking and sale of trademarked products is not a trademark violation.” However, the Court distinguished that case from the instant case because Yurman “alleges more than the mere unauthorized stocking and sale is occurring here. Yurman also alleges prominent and aggressive advertising, including on the Sam’s Club’s website, and a prominent display of Yurman materials and jewelry within its stores. Matrix Essentials anticipates that if more action is taken beyond mere unauthorized stocking and sale of a trademarked product, a claim might survive summary judgment.” Accordingly, the Court denied Sam’s Club motion to dismiss Yurman’s trademark infringement claim (as well as Yurman’s other claims for false designation of origin and unfair competition, for similar reasons).

As for Yurman’s claim for tortious interference with a contract, Yurman argued that despite Sam’s Club knowledge of Yurman’s Authorized Retailer Agreement with every authorized retailers of its products prohibiting the transshipment, diversion or transfer of its products to any other party,”Sam’s Club obtained significant inventories of Yurman products to sell in Sam’s Club stores throughout the United States. . . .” And if Sam’s Club did not know about the prohibition in the Authorized Retailer Agreement initially, Sam’s Club was certainly put on notice when Yurman demanded that Sam’s Club stop inducing Yurman’s retailers into breaching their agreement (a demand that Sam’s Club refused). Yurman further alleged that Sam’s Club could not have acquired such large inventories of Yurman products without having intentionally induced one of Yurman’s retailers to breach its Agreement with Yurman. Based on these factual assertions, the Court found Yurman’s pleadings were sufficient to make out a claim for tortious interference with a contract

Accordingly, the Court denied Sam’s Club’s motion to dismiss.

Righthaven Remembered

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:30:00 +0000

It’s hard to believe that Righthaven, the company that was going to change the news media business by applying the patent lawsuit business model to the enforcement of copyrights, filed its first series of lawsuits five years to go. (The events were so notable that even this trademark dedicated blog could not resist writing up a copyright related post).

To mark the anniversary, former Las Vegas Sun Reporter Steve Green (now a staff writer with the Orange County Register), who helped shine a spotlight on Righthaven as the company embarked on and went about its controversial copyright enforcement campaign, published a new article last week which looks back upon the rise and demise of Righthaven (including new quotes from Righthaven founder Steve Gibson who continues to stand by the actions taken by Righthaven).

See the photo of Steve Gibson and the infamous “bluetooth” headset. (Photo © Las Vegas Sun)

Hakkasan denied preliminary injunctive relief in cybersquatting case for failure to establish irreparable harm

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 23:38:00 +0000

Trademark attorneys in the Ninth Circuit continue to face the fallout from last year’s Ninth Circuit decision in Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1249 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 2014 WL 1575656 (Oct. 6, 2014) (“Herb Reed”). In Herb Reed, the Ninth Circuit, following the Supreme Court’s precedents in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (which held that the traditional four factor test, including establishing irreparable harm, must be employed in patent cases) and Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (which held that parties seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that irreparable harm is likely in the absence of an injunction), rejected the notion that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit was entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm upon demonstrating a likelihood of confusion from alleged trademark infringement and held that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement case must demonstrate irreparable harm in order to get preliminary injunctive relief:

Gone are the days when “[o]nce the plaintiff in an infringement action has established a likelihood of confusion, it is ordinarily presumed that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief does not issue.” Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1220 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 526 (9th Cir.1984)). This approach collapses the likelihood of success and the irreparable harm factors. Those seeking injunctive relief must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.

The Herb Reed case has since left many trademark litigation practitioners (at least those practicing in the Ninth Circuit), after years of being able to obtain preliminary injunctions based on a showing strong showing of likelihood of confusion and the presumption of irreparable harm thereby, now trying to figure out what type of actual “evidence” can be shown to overcome this threshold of demonstrating a likelihood of irreparable harm and having to inform some trademark clients that a preliminary injunction might not be as easily obtainable for trademark infringement as it once was.

The latest example of the struggle to overcome this irreparable harm threshold comes from a court decision by Nevada District Judge Jennifer Dorsey who denied the owner of the Hakkasan nightclub chain preliminary injunctive relief for alleged cybersquatting against an individual who had registered various domain names containing the term “hakkasan.” See Hakkasan LV, LLC et al v. Eddie Miller, Case No. 2:15-cv-290-JAD-PAL (D. Nev).

Hakkasan had filed a cybersquatting lawsuit against Defendant Miller for his registration of the domain names domain names , , , , and (the “Contested Domain Names”) – one of which was linked to a website offering the domain name for sale for $5000 and the other four linked to a webpage located at (also owned by Miller), which encouraged third parties to “partner” with him.

Along with the filing of the complaint, Hakkasan also sought an ex parte temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Miller. However, the Court – without receiving any opposition from Miller – denied Hakkasan’s request for preliminary injunctive relief on the grounds that Hakkasan had failed to show any evidence of a likelihood of irreparable harm arising from Miller’s actions.

In rejecting Hakkasan’s arguments of irreparable harm, the Court stated that “there is no evidence that Miller has taken any steps to compete with Hakkasan’s business beyond registering the Contested Domain Names and offering them for sale.” And while Hakkasan alleged that Miller was using the domain names to “solicit partners to offer counterfeit services to the public,” the Court found

no indication that Miller has sold any of the domain names, partnered with any other person, or constructed a website designed to create confusion with Hakkasan’s business, siphon customers from Hakkasan’s business, or otherwise cause Hakkasan irreparable harm. Speculation of what Miller will do with the domain names is hardly enough to bridge the legal gap between Miller’s actions and Hakkasan’s irreparable injury. Instead, these are the sorts of “platitudes” that the Herb Reed court warned may show harm Hakkasan might suffer, but not harm a party seeking injunctive relief is likely to suffer

Order at p. 4 (emphasis in original).

The Court also rejected as unpersuasive several other cases cited by Hakkasan as support that its evidentiary proffer was sufficient to show irreparable harm. One case – Starbucks Corp. d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Heller, 2014 WL 6685662, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2014) – involved a case where the court found irreparable harm where the presence of infringing products in the market could damage business goodwill. However, the Court noted that Hakkasan had not offered any evidence that Miller had “introduced any competing or counterfeit ‘products’ into the marketplace or taken any steps other than to register the domain name and attempt to sell it to third parties.” Order at p. 4. The second case – Kalologie Franchising LLC v. Kalologie Skincare Medical Group of California , 2014 WL 953442, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014) – involved a defendant who was continuing to use the alleged infringing mark at the defendant’s facility through a point of sale system and a website and where the court found irreparable harm from “plaintiff’s loss of control over its business reputation resulting from a defendant’s alleged unauthorized use of its protected mark during the pendency of an infringement action.” In the case of Hakkasan, however, there was no indication that Hakkasan’s marks were being used by Miller in a manner that was similar to the Kalologie case.

Finally, Hakkasan made one final “Hail Mary” argument that Herb Reed was a trademark infringement case and that the Ninth Circuit’s decision did not expressly overrule the presumption of irreparable harm in a cybersquatting case. The Court rejected such argument, especially given the Ninth Circuit past statements that “cybersquatting is a form of trademark infringement.” The Court further noted two other cybersquatting court decisions issued post-Herb Reed where the plaintiffs were granted preliminary injunctive relief – one involving an evidentiary record showing systematic cybersquatting that was intended to deceive customers (Bittorrent, Inc. v. Bittorrent Marketing GMBH, 2014 WL 5773197 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014) and another where “loss of control over business reputation” established irreparable harm in circumstances where the domain name owner actually operated a business in the same market as the plaintiff and sold products “slightly dissimilar” from plaintiff’s products (Kreation Juicery, Inc. v. Shekarchi, 2014 WL 7564679, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014)). The Court found that Hakkasan had failed to show use of the Contested Domain Names by Miller that reached the same levels as those in the Bittorrent and Kreation Juicery cases.

Accordingly, because Hakkasan had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm, the Court denied both Hakkasan’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Marc Lurie/AirFX.com Wins Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Claim Against AirFX, LLC on Summary Judgment

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:10:00 +0000

AirFX,LLC (“Defendant”), the owner of the trademark AirFX, suffered a defeat last week in its attempt to “acquire” (or as some might say “hijack”) the domain name www.airfx.com from its current registrant, Marc Lurie (“Lurie” or “Plaintiff” ). [Note: There were many articles about this dispute last year when the court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss – see here, here, here, and here for a small sampling].

The airfx.com domain name was originally registered by Bestinfo on March 21, 2003. In June 2005, Air Systems Engineering, Inc. ("ASE") filed a trademark registration application for the mark AirFX for “motorcycles, vehicle parts, namely, shock absorbers, and suspension systems for motorcycles, bicycles, automobiles, and powered vehicles.” The mark registered in March 2007. In April 2011, ASE assigned its trademark rights to a wholly owned subsidiary, Defendant AirFX,LLC.

Lurie originally was involved in operating skydiving wind tunnel businesses under the name "SkyVenture," but later decided to use the name AIRFX in connection with a new line of wind tunnels (despite having found ASE’s application to register AIRFX after conducting a trademark search). Lurie acquired the airfx.com from Bestinfo for $2,100 on February 2, 2007, but never posted any content or created a website – and instead has a typical landing page (or “splash page” as defined in the opinion) put up by the registrar, GoDaddy.com. While the landing page does have links to third party advertisements, Lurie maintained that he drived no revenue from such advertisements (and Defendant never provided any evidence to the contrary). After leaving SkyVenture, Lurie was bound by a non-compete agreement prohibiting him from developing his own line of wind tunnels until 2010. However, Lurie never sold any product under the brand AIRFX nor conducted any advertising, marketing, or manufacturing activities. Lurie also never sold or offered to sell suspension systems for motorcycles, or any other motorcycle-related products.

Defendant contacted Lurie in 2008 regarding the purchase of airfx.com. While the partie dispute the terms of the offer at that time, no agreement was reached. In 2011, Defendant filed a domain dispute complaint before the National Arbitration Forum. On May 16, 2011, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of Defendant and ordered that GoDaddy transfer airfx.com to Defendant. See AirFX, LLC v. ATTN AIRFX.COM, Claim Number FA1104001384655 (NAF May 16, 2011)).

Lurie sought relief against the ordered transfer by filing a complaint which included a claim for reverse domain name hijacking under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v). Defendant counterclaimed with claims of cybersquatting and trademark infringement. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On August 23, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled in favor of Lurie by finding as a matter of law that Lurie was not liable for Defendant’s counterclaims of cybersquatting or trademark infringement, and accordingly, Lurie’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its reverse domain name hijacking claim was granted. See AIRFX.com et al. v. AirFX LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120285 (D. Ariz. August 23, 2012) (order here).

In deciding Defendant’s cybersquatting claim, the issue centered around the meaning of “registration” (ed.-an issue near and dear to my heart). The court detailed the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, 657 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2011) which clarified the meaning of "registration" and found that a party’s re-registration and continued ownership of a domain name that a party had registered long before a trademark owner registered its trademarks does not violate the cybersquatting statute (prior blog post here).

Defendant attempted to distinguish GoPets because in that case, the original domain name registrant transferred the domain name to an entity that he co-owned. In contrast, Lurie purchased airfx.com from an unrelated third party. Defendant argued that the purpose of the ACPA would be undermined if a cybersquatter who purchases a domain name in bad faith is immune from liability simply because the domain name he purchased existed before a mark was distinctive.

However, the court found otherwise:

Nothing in the language of GoPets indicates that it should be read as narrowly as defendant suggests. GoPets did not distinguish between transfers of a domain name to related parties and other kinds of domain name transfers. To the contrary, GoPets broadly reasoned that if an original owner's rights associated with a domain name were lost upon transfer to "another owner," the rights to many domain names would become "effectively inalienable," a result the intention of which was not reflected in either the structure or the text of the ACPA.

In short, the court, following GoPets, found that it was undisputed that airfx.com was initially registered on March 21, 2003 by Bestinfo, ASE’s first use in commerce of the AirFX mark was June 2005, and Lurie purchased airfx.com on February 2, 2007 – and thus, Lurie’s registration of airfx.com in February 2007 "was not a registration within the meaning of § 1125(d)(1)” and because Bestinfo registered airfx.com long before ASE registered its mark, Lurie’s registration and ownership of airfx.com does not violate the cybersquatting statute. The court granted summary judgment on Defendant’s cybersquatting counterclaim in favor of Lurie.

As for Defendant’s counterclaim for trademark infringement, the court focused on the fundamental issue of whether Lurie used the mark “in commerce” (noting that “If a person's use of a mark is noncommercial, it does not violate the Lanham Act.”). Defendant’s sole argument of Lurie’s commercial use centered on particular allegations and admissions. However, the court found no dispute that Lurie had never sold an AirFX product, have no advertising or marketing activities, have no manufacturing activities, never developed a website for airfx.com, and never sold any AirFX products or services on such website. The court further found that Lurie’s limited activity of some pre-sales efforts and preliminary research, viewing such facts in the light most favorable to Defendant, was still insufficient to constitute commercial use of a mark.

Although plaintiffs have developed a brand name, registered a domain name, started researching the design of their wind tunnels and approached potential investors and customers, plaintiffs have not sold, manufactured, advertised, or marketed any product bearing the AirFX mark. Defendant points to no other facts to establish plaintiffs' commercial use of the AirFX mark.

As such, without raising any genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiffs' use of the mark was commercial, the court found as a matter of law that no commercial use existed and therefore, there could be no trademark infringement as a matter of law and granted summary judgment on Defendant’s trademark infringement counterclaim in favor of Lurie.

Finally, with respect to Lurie’s claim for reverse domain name hijacking, the only issue was whether Lurie’s registration of the airfx.com domain name was “not unlawful."

Because we have concluded that plaintiffs cannot be liable under the ACPA for cybersquatting as a matter of law, and because plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim, we conclude that there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiffs' use of the domain name is lawful.

Defendant tried to argue that Lurie should not be entitled to such equitable relief because Lurie “conducted the litigation in unprecedented, and unprofessional ways.” [ed.—there are two sides to every story, and I’m sure Lurie has some stories about the actions of Defendant’s counsel as well]. However, the court noted the clear mandate of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v), which allows the court to “grant injunctive relief to the domain name registrant, including the reactivation of the domain name or transfer of the domain name to the domain name registrant." As such, the court ordered that the airfx.com remain registered with Lurie.

The court’s final words was to note that “[b]oth parties argue that this case is ‘exceptional’ under the Lanham Act, warranting an award of attorneys' fees. We will address a motion for attorneys' fees if and when one is before us.” Stay tuned . . .

Stephens Media Wins $200,000 Default Judgment Over Alleged Trademark Infringement of “Best of Las Vegas”

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:47:00 +0000

[After all these years, they still have do not have a category for “Best Las Vegas Trademark Attorney Blog” – or perhaps my dearth of blog posting in 2012 took me out of the running this year]

Back in 2009 (when I had much more time to blog on a more regular basis), I wrote about the three separate trademark infringement lawsuits filed by Stephens Media LLC (“Stephens Media”), the owner of the Las Vegas newspaper The Las Vegas Review Journal, against three separate companies over their alleged use of the term “BEST OF LAS VEGAS.” See previous blog entry here.

In the case against one of the companies, CitiHealth LLC (“CitiHealth”), on August 6, 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Miranda Du issued a decision on a motion for default judgment filed by Stephens Media. See Stephens Media LLC v. CitiHealth LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109431 (D. Nev. August 6, 2012). What is interesting is how long it took for the case to get to this point.

The complaint against CitiHealth was originally filed on December 2, 2009, and related to the company’s publication of a magazine in December 2008 called “Healthy Living Las Vegas” that included the phrase on the cover “Best of Las Vegas.” When CitiHealth failed to answer the complaint, a default was entered by the Clerk on March 24, 2010. So why didn’t Stephens Media seek a default judgment at that time? Well, the complaint was originally filed by Steve Gibson and his former firm Gibson Lowry and Burris. Steve Gibson is also better known as the CEO of Righthaven LLC, the copyright enforcement company established by Gibson and Stephens Media to file lawsuits against websites that infringed on copyrights associated with Las Vegas Review Journal articles. [I certainly don’t have the time or energy to go into all of the details of the Righthaven-saga in this post and will instead defer to those websites (here and here) that have tracked all things Righthaven and which will give any interested party the necessary background to understand what may have caused Mr. Gibson to be a little distracted during 2010 and 2011 as well as what may have caused a rift between Mr. Gibson and Stephens Media].

Over a year went by without any follow-up after the entry of default against CitiHealth. Finally, on May 24, 2012, the Court issued a Order to Show Cause, as to why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Six days later, Stephens Media filed a Motion to Substitute Attorney and subsequently informed the Court that that it had retained new counsel and intended to seek a preliminary injunction and default judgment. On July 2, 2012, through new counsel Gordon Silver, Stephens Media filed the Motion for Default Judgment. On July 13, 2012, Kenneth Shepherd, the co-owner of CitiHealth, notified both the Court and Stephens Media’s counsel that Healthy Living no longer exists and has not existed for the past 3 years and that CitiHealth had dissolved on May 9, 2012 and that the co-owners of the company had had filed for personal bankruptcy.

The Court nevertheless proceeded to analyze Stephens Media’s motion for default judgment under the Eitel factors established by the Ninth Circuit:

"The Ninth Circuit has identified the following factors as relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion in determining whether to grant default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the plaintiff's substantive claims; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to the excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471--72 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Trustees of Elec. Workers Health and Welfare Trust v. Campbell, No. 07-724, 2009 WL 3255169 (D. Nev. Oct. 7, 2009)."

Despite CitiHealth's dissolution, the Court found that CitiHealth's failure to appear in this action and the likelihood that it will never respond to this action creates a high possibility of prejudice to Plaintiff in the absence of a default judgment. The Court found that the Complaint did sufficiently state claims for relief (under the Rule 8 liberal pleading standards).

With respect to the amount of money at stake, Stephens Media sought $200,000 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(1) for non-willful trademark infringement of one mark (i.e., the Trademark Act’s statutory damages provision for use of “counterfeit” marks). Without much discussion, the Court stated that “[b]ecause Stephens demonstrates a basis for its requested monetary relief, the fourth Eitel factor favors Stephens.” [Comment: counterfeit use, really? And even so, court has discretion to award statutory damages ranging from $1000 to $200,000—did the circumstances really merit the “maximum”?]

The Court found that the sufficiency of the Complaint was such that no genuine dispute of material facts would prejudice granting the motion. The Court also found that CitiHealth had sufficient notice of the complaint and therefore it is unlikely that CitiHealth's failure to respond and subsequent default resulted from excusable neglect. Finally, the Court, while recognizing the preference to have cases decided on the merits, found that CitiHealth's failure to answer Stephens Media's Complaint makes a decision on the merits impractical, if not impossible.

In the end, the Court entered a default judgment awarding $200,000 against CitiHealth as well as a permanent injunction against CitiHealth and its officers against any further use of the “Best of Las Vegas” mark. The Court also gave Stephens Media 30 days to file a motion for attorneys fees.

While its highly unlikely that Stephens Media will be able to collect on its $200,000 default judgment, one wonders if Stephens Media, should it be able to collect such funds, would be willing to pump that money into back into Righthaven LLC so that Righthaven can pay the money that it owes to its creditors (including multiple defendants that the Nevada District Court found were wrongly sued by Righthaven for copyright infringement). That’s probably even more highly unlikely.

New Blog Tracks the Las Vegas Sound Choice Lawsuit

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:10:00 +0000

For regular readers who have noticed a lack of activity on this blog, it’s the classic conundrum of client demands getting in the way of blogging. I hope to be back to normal posting in mid-May (of course, I said that back in January and look what happened).

One story that I would have like to have covered is the “trademark infringement” lawsuit filed by Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation against karaoke DJs (“KJs”) and venues in Las Vegas for alleged infringement of the SOUND CHOICE trademark. (Las Vegas Sun articles here and here).

I’ve been watching Slep-Tone pursue its “litigation business model” going all the way back to 2009 (back before Steve Gibson’s Righthaven brought a new name to the business model of filing lawsuits to get quick settlements). All one has to do is type “sound choice lawsuit” into a search engine and you’ll find numerous sources (e.g., SoundChoiceSucks) commenting on Slep-Tone’s lawsuit campaign (including Sound Choice’s own web page about why it is pursuing this “piracy campaign” and Sound Choice’s uber-aggressive investigation firm APS and Associates).

Well, it was only a matter of time before Slep-Tone made its way to “sin city” to troll for some quickie settlements here by filing a single, boilerplate lawsuit naming approx. 200 KJs and venues. See Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation v. Ellis Island Casino & Brewery et al, Case No. 12-cv-00239 (D. Nev.) (lawsuit here). This lawsuit was actually a long-time coming. Slep-Tone’s investigation firm, APS, was trolling (pun intended) around Las Vegas last May and June 2011 doing its “investigations” into potential KJs and venues it could sue. Letters were sent out at that time citing the KJs as potential trademark violators – and demanding that they submit themselves to an audit to determine that their Sound Choice tracks were legitimate. Those who did not respond or otherwise settle are now the defendants in this mass-trademark infringement lawsuit.

I am a big believer that knowledge is power and using the internet to inform the public (particularly, in this case, small-time KJs who cannot afford to hire a lawyer to defend against Slep-Tone’s specious lawsuit). I was originally planning to start up a separate website that would monitor and track the Las Vegas Sound Choice lawsuit (posting the major court filings so that others could benefit from law firm work product as well as articles and other information already out there). A single resource that had good, usable information to assist those caught up in Slep-Tone’s questionable lawsuit.

Well, the lack of blogging here should be an indication of the time (or lack thereof) that I had to pursue such a project. And now someone else has beaten me to it.

Local attorney Robert J. Kossack, Esq. started up soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com. As he describes on his “About the Host” page, he started out writing an article for a magazine about the lawsuit and it took on a life of its own. His detailed post “Massive lawsuit threatens to change karaoke in Las Vegas” details the legal issues pretty well. (I don’t have the time to get into the merits of the lawsuit, but needless to say, I have always been bothered by the counterfeiting claims because it seemed like a reach on the part of Slep-Tone just so that it could threaten small-time defendants with statutory damages for infringement).

In addition, Mr. Kossack has not only made available all of the major court filings in the lawsuit (link here), but he even provides “template” joinders (one for motions to dismiss and one for motions to sever) that pro-se KJs who can’t afford an attorney can copy and paste (hey, what do you think lawyers do?) and file with the court so in order to “join” the motion to dismiss and motion to sever filed by the larger casino venues (PTs, Caesars, Treasure Island, Station Casinos) to ensure that Slep-Tone cannot get a default judgment against you (at least not at this early stage).

Mr. Kossack has done exactly what I wanted to do in order to inform the public (especially KJs) about the Las Vegas Sound Choice lawsuit. And that is why soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com is my new favorite blog. I think it has the potential to become another website along the lines of those which popped up during the Righthaven debacle (Righthaven Lawsuits, Righthaven Victims).

I just hope he doesn’t get too busy dealing with client demands -- after all, nothing worse than a blog where months go by without any new postings.

Trade Dress Protection does not Prevent a Competitor from Copying your Product

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Borghese) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:57:00 +0000

[Post by Mark Borghese]

When a competitor makes an identical copy of your product, but sells the copy-cat product under a different brand name, do you have any recourse? What if your product and the competitor's product are so close they look as if they came from the same mold? Is that enough to sue?

Unless you have a utility patent, or some of the copied portions are artistic or ornamental, the answer is almost always no.

In the United States, utility patents are the only way to protect functional elements of a product. Over the years, litigants have made many attempts to protect product engineering with something other than a utility patent with very little success. Often, when a competitor duplicates a product there is no patent claim (because a patent was never granted), no trademark claim (because the product is sold under a different brand), and no copyright claim (because nothing artistic was copied). Often the only possible intellectual property claim left is "trade dress" which refers to the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that signals to consumers the product's source. But not just any visual appearances are entitled to trade dress protection. Only non-functional visual appearances count. This means something artistic or arbitrary in a product's design or packaging.

In Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2012), one of the Plaintiffs, Tractel, Inc., manufactures and sells the Tirak traction hoist pictured below.

These type of traction hoists typically raise and lower swing stage scaffolding platforms on large buildings like this one sold by Tractel.

During a tradeshow in Las Vegas, Tractel saw a Chinese competitor, Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery Co. ("Jiangsu") exhibiting a competing product that looked strikingly similar to Tractel's product.

Tractel sued the Chinese competitor in the District of Nevada alleging trade dress infringement. When discovery closed, both parties moved for summary judgment. The presiding district judge, James C. Mahan, ruled in favor of the Defendants. Judge Mahan found there was no trade dress infringement as all of the claimed "trade dress" served a functional purpose.

Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld Judge Mahan’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit held:

Tractel's hoist is . . . a utilitarian machine with no indication that the visual appearance of its rectangular exterior design is anything more than the result of a simple amalgamation of functional component parts. Absent are any indicia of arbitrary or fanciful design. "To uphold a finding of infringement here . . . would suggest that the general appearance of almost any unpatented product rarely if ever could be copied faithfully. That is not the law." Leatherman, 199 F.3d at 1011. The form of Tractel's hoist follows its function, making the hoist a classic example of "de jure" functionality. We affirm the district court’s determination that Tractel did not present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress.

Tractel attempted to argue that the overall exterior appearance of its product was non-functional due to its "cubist" and "modern" look and feel. The Ninth Circuit rejected these arguments. In fact, the court found Plaintiff's arguments to be nothing more than semantic trickery.

It is not enough to say that the design portrays a "cubist" feel—so does a square table supported by four legs. The fins may be attractive but they serve a functional purpose. And the cube-shaped gear box is simply housing. Except for conclusory, self-serving statements, Tractel provides no other evidence of fanciful design or arbitrariness; instead, here, "the whole is nothing other than the assemblage of functional parts, and where even the arrangement and combination of the parts is designed to result in superior performance, it is semantic trickery to say that there is still some sort of separate 'overall appearance' which is non-functional."

What Tractel really lacked in this litigation was evidence that any of its customers viewed the design of Tractel’s hoists as non-function or a source identifier. The Ninth-Circuit noted that one of Tractel’s customers testified that everything about the hoist design is functional.

[T]he entire design is predicated on function from what I've seen, and again as with most hoist manufacturers, every element on there is critical to the design otherwise they wouldn’t waste the money or the weight which again comes back to the weight is the key component. So in my opinion every element on there is important to the function.

The Ninth Circuit found that Tractel's other witnesses were just as unpersuasive.

From its own witnesses, Tractel at best offered either unsupported or conclusory claims about the design. Fatal to its claim was the testimony of its own witnesses who honestly laid out the functional nature of the design. Lacking was any evidence, like engineering notebooks or testimony from the designers, about design or aesthetics. Even more devastating was the testimony of third-party witnesses called by Tractel who laid bare the claim of nonfunctionality. For example, they testified that the fins play an important function of dissipating heat and are not for aesthetics. Likewise, the shape of the hoist is practical because it fits in confined construction sites and it is "more efficient and more compact" than some of the other hoists on the market.

Trade dress protection claims -- especially unregistered trade dress protection claims -- are notoriously difficult to prove. And, as the Ninth Circuit held here, impossible to prove without evidence that the design elements are non-functional.

--
About the author
Mark Borghese is a Las Vegas entertainment law attorney with the law firm of Borghese Legal, Ltd.

The Blog Posts That Never Were

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:01:00 +0000

Oh how many times there have been where I wanted to blog about some interesting trademark story or legal development . . . only to have client needs get in the way. So many blog posts started, and so few ever finished. But that doesn’t mean I still can’t post a long list of them here – with links to articles and/or other blog postings that cover the topics as eloquently as I could have.

Let’s call it my Top 10 Missed Trademark Blog Opportunities.

10. Who Doesn’t Love Boobies!

Foundation which owns the I (Heart) Boobies trademark sues company for selling unauthorized I (Heart) Boobies bracelets. Complaint here. San Diego Reader Article.

9. The Platters Trademark Lawsuits Keeps Going and Going.

VegasInc Article Here. Amazing that the name still generates enough revenue to make these kinds of actions worthwhile.

(Scene from The Hangover Part II)

8. Louis Vuitton Sues Warner Brothers for Scene in the Hangover Part II.

Paid Content Article. Hollywood Reporter Article

Really, Louis Vuitton? How would anybody in the world know if the bag that Zach Galifianakis’ character references as a “Louis Vuitton” is fake or real? (frankly, you can barely even see it in the scene). More importantly, who would care even if they knew? (It doesn’t change the humor in the particular scene which is more about his mispronunciation of Louis as “loo-is”).

7. Pepsi and Frito Lay Sue Vegas Company for Creating “Diversionary Concealment Devices” Using Pepsi and Frito Lay Cans

Pepsi and Frito Lay accuse company of using their soft drink and food cans to create containers marketed to hide “illicit narcotics” and weapons. Complaint here. Courthousenews Article. Well of course such canister safes have to be created from Pepsi and Frito Lay’s original packaging bearing their trademarks – the police won’t be fooled by cans that says “Cola” or “Tortilla Chips.” Uh, duh!

6. Hasbro Files Section 1071(b) Action of PTO Opposition of “Motown Metal” trademark

After failing to overcome the trademark opposition to its application for register Motown Metal at the PTO (TTAB Decision here), Hasbro decides to pursue a Section 1071(b) action rather than appealing to the Federal Circuit. Complaint here. TTABlog Post on TTAB Decision here and Hasbro’s action here.

5. Petronas Towers Comes Crashing Down In Bid To Go After GoDaddy For Contributory Cybersquatting

Owner of the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, was not content to win control of the two domain names – petronastower.net and petronastowers.net – through in rem actions (previous blog post here); it just had to keep pushing to try to make GoDaddy liable in some way . . . and failed big time. Berhad v. GoDaddy, 09-5939 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012). Technology & Marketing Law Blog Post (Post by Venkat Balasubramani). Of course, if the company was bold enough to have even maintained this action, it’s likely to be bold enough to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

4. The Return of the Sliding Scale Test for Preliminary Injunctive Relief in the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explains how its old “sliding scale” approach to preliminary injunctive relief remains viable following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the standard for preliminary injunctions in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). Seattle Trademark Lawyer Blog Post.

3. Cupcakery Determined to Be Generic

The PTO finds CUPCAKERY to be generic and refuses registration:

The applicant’s mark is THE CUPCAKERY for, “Retail and online retail bakery shops.” CUPCAKERY is defined as, “A bakery which only sells cupcakes”. Please see the attached dictionary definition. THE CUPCAKERY immediately describes a feature or characteristic of the applicant’s services, specifically, the applicant is a bakery that sells cupcakes. Please see the attached evidence from the applicant’s website which shows that the applicant’s bakery sells cupcakes. Further, please see the attached third party Internet website evidence from www.frostedcupcakery.com, www.sibbyscupcakery.com,www.carolinacupcakery.com, www.ourcupcakery.com, www.batchcupcakery.com, www.buttercreamcupcakery.com, www.kumquatcupcakery.com, www.sugarcupcakery.com, sivadascupcakery.com, and sugarbabiescupcakery.com which shows that in the applicant’s industry a cupcakery is a bakery specializing in cupcakes and is commonly used by cupcake bakeries.

PTO File Wrapper for one of the four applications here. Of course, the applications were filed in September 2008 and one wonders if the mark, while possibly distinctive at the time of filing, became generic during their pendency.

2. Cavern Club files Section 1071(b) Action in Nevada District Court

Filed around the same time as the Hasbro case above – making TTAB appeals via Section 1071(b) appear to be growing in popularity. Not happy with the results it obtain at the TTAB (decision here), owner of the UK club that was popular venue for The Beatles sues Hard Rock to cancel CAVERN CLUB registration. Trademark Blog Post. Complaint here.

And Las Vegas Trademark Attorney's #1 Missed Blog Opportunity . . .

1. Ninth Circuit Determines that Renewal of Domain is Not Re-Registration

Or as I liked to say when the decision was issued . . . “I told you so!” (those who know me and my previous involvement in a cybersquatting dispute that involved this precise issue will understand what I mean). GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, Appeal No. 08-56110 (9th Cir. 2011). Technically, there was a blog post about this case on this blog (link here), but it was written by fellow local trademark attorney Mark Borghese (who was kind enough to contribute some blog content during a period of time last year that was particularly busy). Finnegan’s Incontestable Article.

The more interesting question, however, is does this now give cybersquatting immunity to domainers who purchase a domain name from another owner who happened to originally register the domain name at a time when no distinctive mark existed, but who then begin using such domain name in a way that would constitutes cybersquatting had the domainer’s purchase been considered a “registration” under the statute?

Honorable Mention -- The AIRFX Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Case

AirFX LLC won a UDRP decision over the domain name airfx.com (AirFX, LLC v. ATTN AIRFX.COM, Claim Number FA1104001384655 (NAF May 16, 2011)), and so the domain name owner, Mark Laurie, sought relief by filing a reverse domain name hijacking lawsuit. See Airfx.com et al v. AirFX LLC, Case No. 11-01064 (D. Ariz.). Not only did the court deny AirFX, LLC’s motion to dismiss, the Court also awarded Plaintiff $4086 in costs and fees for AirFX’s failure to waive service of process. Decision here. Technology & Marketing Law Blog Post.

A Real Dog of a Trademark Case

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:24:00 +0000

People take their pets very seriously . . . and apparently the same is true with respect to their pet store trademarks.

On January 13, 2012, Puparazzi Industries of America LLC (“PIA”) filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Arizona against Puparazzi Pet Spa LLC (“PPS”). See Puparazzi Industries of America LLC v. Puparazzi Pet Spa LLC, Case No. 12-cv-00084 (D. Ariz.). A copy of the complaint can be downloaded here.

According to the complaint, PIA is a mobile pet grooming van that provides its pet grooming services throughout the Phoenix, Arizona area using the marks PUPARAZZI MOBILE PET SPAW and WHERE YOUR PET’S THE STAR (which it claims to have been using in the area since May 10, 2010) and with bright pink and purple colors on its grooming van.

PIA only recently filed to register the mark PUPARAZZI MOBILE PET SPAW (which contains the odd concurrent use information “Regional and National). [Sidenote: The application does not appear to have been filed by an attorney, but instead by the company’s managing member]. The same company had an application on file for PUPARAZZI INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA (filed March 2010), but when it came time to show use of the mark, all that it could muster up was its specimen showing the mark PUPARAZZI MOBILE PET SPAW. The PTO rejected both the specimen of use (since it did not show the mark as applied in use) as well as the applicant’s attempt to alter the “drawing” of the mark from PUPARAZZI INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA to PUPARAZZI MOBILE PET SPAW (a material alteration).

PIA claims that defendant PPS began operating a pet grooming store in Phoenix, Arizona, using the marks PUPARAZZI PET SPA and EVERY DOG IS A STAR! (and the color pink on its website and facebook account) around September 2011. PIA’s causes of action are for federal trademark infringement and unfair competition.

This looks more like an example of a local “pet grooming store” name battle between two local business competitors (not as uncommon as you might think), rather than a company beginning to exert trademark rights to the word PUPARAZZI. I suspect that PIA’s “concurrent use” claim in its trademark application is a recognition by the owner of the company that there are other companies out there using the PUPARAZZI mark in connection with similar services including Puparazzi Dog Spa (in North Aurora, Illinois) and Puparazzi Pet Grooming (in Green Bay, Wisconsin). There is also a pet photographer using the name Puparazzi Portraits. And one man owns the registered trademark for PUPARAZZI in connection with pet clothing.

And to the extent PIA is able to prove both that it is the prior user of the mark the Phoenix, Arizona area as well as the scope of its reputation in the Phoenix, Arizona area, then it may very well likely be able to get PPS to change its name.

AMEX Wins Cancellation of BLACKCARD Trademark Registration

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:06:00 +0000

American Express (“Amex”), the issuer of the ultra-exclusive “Centurion Card” credit card (which is black in color and thus better known among the public as the “Black Card” -- pictured above), won a victory in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Black Card, LLC (“BC”), a company that obtained a trademark registration for the mark BLACKCARD (for credit and debit card services). The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Amex on its claim that BC’s trademark registration for BLACKCARD should be canceled on the grounds that it is merely descriptive and BC had not demonstrated acquired distinctiveness. See American Express Marketing and Development Corp, et al. v. Black Card, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133151 (S.D.N.Y. November 17, 2011)

In 1998, Amex, following its long history of color-based credit cards reflecting a hierarchy of credit card prestige (i.e., green, gold, platinum), developed a black colored credit card which it called the Centurion Card and which was available by invitation only. While Amex never formally refers to the Centurion Card as the “Black Card,” Amex executives recognized that the public referred to its Centurion Card as the “Black Card” and thus often informally referred to the card as Amex’s “black card.” While Amex applied to register BLACK FROM AMERICAN EXPRESS, it never filed a Statement of Use and the application went abandoned.

(The other "Black Card")

In 2008, BC began issuing its own card (in connection with Barclays Bank Delaware and Visa) which was black in color and which had the words “BLACK CARD” emblazoned theron (pictured above). BC’s CEO Scott Blum, who founded Internet retailer Buy.com and who was a Centurion cardholder since Amex first introduced the card, began developing his black-colored premium credit card back in 2005 when he was CEO of Internet company called Yub, Inc. Blum, apparently frustrated with Amex’s Centurion services, sought to build a “better Black Card.” Yub applied for the BLACKCARD on September 20, 2005. The mark was published for opposition in May 2006 and, when no oppositions were filed, the PTO issued a Notice of Allowance in 2006. Yub later assigned all of its rights to the as-yet-unregistered mark to BC. [Query: Was this assignment of an intent-to-use application even valid under 15 U.S.C. § 1060? – see actual recorded assignment]

BC (and its predecessor) filed thirteen applications total between 2005 and 2009 for various BLACK CARD marks. Some were refused on the grounds that the mark was merely descriptive; in others, Examining Attorneys requested information from BC about whether consumers would associate the mark with a different provider of credit card services. Nonetheless, the PTO did issue the aforementioned trademark registration on April 29, 2009. However, for reasons not entirely clear, even though BC’s attorney had filed a preliminary amendment which inserted a disclaimer of the term BLACK apart from the mark as shown, the registration certificate did not reflect the disclaimer when it issued.

On May 13, 2009, Amex filed a petition to cancel with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. See American Express Marketing & Development Corp. et al v. Black Card, LLC, Cancellation No. 92050968 (TTAB). On February 16, 2010, BC filed an action in Wyoming that sought a declaratory judgment regarding Amex’s rights to “Black Card” as well as other trademark and unfair competition claims. On February 26, 2010, Amex filed the instant action in New York District Court alleging its own trademark and unfair competition claims as well as seeking to cancel BC’s registration under §2(e) of the Lanham Act. The TTAB’s proceeding was suspended on May 7, 2010, pending the outcome of the lawsuits. Moreover, Amex was able to get BC’s Wyoming complaint dismissed as an anticipatory filing. BC later refiled its counterclaims in the New York action. The parties later stipulated to have Amex's claims for monetary damages and BC's federal and state trademark infringement and unfair competition claims dismissed with prejudice. Upon close of discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, with Amex moving for partial summary judgment on its §2(e) cancellation claim.

The court’s decision goes into a lengthy (but informative) discussion of its power to determine the right to registration of a mark, the standard for refusing registration of marks which are “merely descriptive” when used on or in connection with the goods/services of the applicant, the spectrum of distinctiveness with respect to protection of a mark (i.e., generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful), and the rebuttable presumption which arises a mark that is registered by the PTO.

Regarding the rebuttable presumption, the court stated:

When the PTO issues a certificate of registration for a mark, a rebuttable presumption arises that the mark is protectable. Papercutter, 900 F.2d at 562-63. "Registration by the PTO without proof of secondary meaning creates the presumption that the mark is more than merely descriptive, and, thus, that the mark is inherently distinctive." Lane Capital, 192 F.3d at 345. The fact of registration, however, "shall not preclude another person from proving any legal or equitable defense or defect . . . which might have been asserted if such mark had not been registered." 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a). The party challenging the registration "bears the burden to rebut the presumption of [the] mark's protectability by a preponderance of the evidence." Lane Capital, 192 F.3d at 345. "The presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the mark is descriptive, not suggestive." Papercutter, 900 F.2d at 563.
The presumption, in short, is a "procedural advantage" to the registrant and nothing else. Lane Capital, 192 F.3d at 345. It is not "itself evidence of how the public actually views the mark." Id. "The presumption of validity that federal registration confers evaporates as soon as evidence of invalidity is presented. Its only function is to incite such evidence, and when the function has been performed the presumption drops out of the case." Id. (citation omitted).

So while the court gave BC’s BLACKCARD registration its appropriate rebuttable presumption of protectability by virtue of its 2009 PTO registration, the court found that Amex had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the mark is descriptive was descriptive, and thus not protectable absent secondary meaning. The court also found that “No reasonable factfinder could find that a prospective consumer would consider the mark to be suggestive rather than descriptive.” The court first noted that BC’s mark BLACKCARD appears on a black-colored credit card. “As with other credit cards, it enables its holders to make purchases on credit. The black color of the card is an essential feature or characteristic of the card. BC's advertising emphasizes the color, underscoring this point.” The court further noted that the word BLACK is descriptive in a second sense within the credit card industry:

Within the credit card industry, the word "black" is descriptive in a second sense as well. Largely through the efforts of Amex, the word "black", when used in connection with credit cards is understood to describe access to premium credit card services. Indeed, this was the very reason that Blum chose the mark "BLACKCARD" for his credit card. The term "BLACKCARD" immediately calls to mind an important aspect or characteristic of the product and describes the product's principal features and qualities. It is, in essence, communicating the grade of credit card offered by BC. The black-colored credit card marketed by BC is central enough to the overall product, however defined, to render "BLACKCARD" a descriptive mark.

Finally, following its determination that BC’s mark was descriptive, the court further found that BC had offerred no evidence of secondary meaning accruing to the mark BLACKCARD in order to support an argument of acquired distinctiveness.

BC attempted to argue that Amex lacked standing to seek to cancel BC’s mark, but the court rejected such arguments finding that Amex had “a significant, concrete, and real interest in proceedings to challenge the registration” based on its own use of the term “black card” in communications to prospective customers about the Centurion card (and noting that BC sued Amex for infringement).

BC also attempted to argue that its mark is not descriptive, but instead is suggestive of high-end financial services (citing cases where the color RED was held to be a protectable mark in connection with perfume and scotch whiskey). However, with respect to the Red Label mark on scotch whiskey, the mark did not serve as a grade designation; and with respect to RED on perfume, such reference suggested romance and passion to the prospective purchasers. In the instance case, the court found that BLACKCARD “merely describes the color of the card and the category of credit card services into which BC's card falls.”

As such, the court granted ary judgment for Amex on its cancellation claim under § 2(e) of the Lanham Act.

Recent Developments in Various Pending Trademark Cases

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Back in the good ole days of 2009-2010 when I actually had time to blog, I posted about three particular lawsuits filed in the District of Nevada – each of which had significant developments this week (all reported on by VegasInc’s Steve Green).

Arrow Productions Ltd. v. V.C.X., Ltd. et al, Case No. 09-cv-00737 (D. Nev.) (previous blog post here)

The copyright and trademark dispute over “Deep Throat.” As reported by VegasInc., the parties reached a settlement whereby VCX agreed to stop selling “Deep Throat” (the copyright to which Arrow claimed) and Arrow agreed to stop selling “Debbie Does Dallas” (the copyright to which VCX claimed). As part of the court’s order and judgment (copy here), there are stipulated facts regarding the chain of title for the copyright to the film “Deep Throat” (including addressing the issue of how copies of the film were distributed without a copyright notice, and yet how that did not put the film in the public domain because the copyright owner technically leased the theaters when the film was shown (so-called “four walling”) and retained control over the prints – with any other copies being unauthorized prints).

Mine O'Mine, Inc. v. Michael Calmese, True Fan Logo, Inc. and Dan Mortense, Case No. 10-cv-00043 (D. Nev.) (previous blog post here)

The trademark lawsuit filed by Shaquille O’Neal over Defendants’ use of the mark SHAQTUS. As reported by VegasInc., the court issued a detailed summary judgment ruling earlier this year (copy here) that found the Defendants only started using the mark SHAQTUS after sportswriters gave O’Neal that name when he began playing for the Phoenix Suns and that there was a likelihood of consumer confusion arising between shirts sold by O’Neal’s company and SHAQTUS shirts sold by Defendants. This week, the court entered judgment against the Defendants (copy here) which terminated the litigation because of O’Neal’s willingness to drop the cybersquatting and dilution claims that remained following the court’s summary judgment order.

Caesars World, Inc. v. July et al, Case No. 11-cv-00536 (D. Nev.) (previous blog post here)

The cybersquatting action filed by Caesars Palace against Marcel July and his use of the mark OCTAVIUS TOWER. As reported by VegasInc., the court denied July’s motion for preliminary injunction (copy here) finding that July failed to meet the necessary burden to merit injunctive relief. July’s only argument was his PTO registration for the name OCTAVIUS TOWER for entertainment services (along with some state registrations). The court noted that while the registration served as prima facie evidence of July’s exclusive rights to use the mark for entertainment services, such evidence can be rebutted – and in this case, the court found that Caesars had made “strong arguments” against July’s use of the mark that “extinguishes” July’s prima facie case. July did not respond to Caesar’s arguments. Moreover, July also failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, balance of hardships favoring him, or that that injunction would be in the public interest.

GoPets v. Hise, Does Transferring a Domain Name Create a New "Registration" under the ACPA?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Borghese) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:41:00 +0000

[Post by Mark Borghese]

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") provides that a person is liable to a trademark owner when the person (1) registers a domain name, (2) in bad faith, (3) that at the time of registration was “identical or confusingly similar to” a distinctive trademark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1).

When analyzing claims under the ACPA, timing is critical. Often an entity will acquire trademark rights long after a domain name is first registered. When a domain name is registered and continuously maintained by a single individual or entity, what is meant by the "time of registration" of the domain name is clear. It is the date the domain name was first registered.

The question courts have grappled with is whether transfers of a domain name from one registrar to another constitutes a "new registration" or whether transfers from one entity to another constitutes a "new registration." If these transfer are "new registrations" then the registration date of the domain name may be reset to a point after the trademark owner acquired rights in a trademark. In those instances, the trademark owner has an opportunity to use the ACPA to acquire domains which were originally registered before it had any trademark rights.

The underlying legal question really boils down to this: is the ownership of a domain name a property right or a contractual right? If a domain name is a property right then rights acquired when a domain name is first registered are freely transferable to a subsequent owner. If a domain name is merely a contractual right, then the rights may change every time a new agreement is signed with a registrar and every time a new owner signs an agreement with a registrar.

On September 22, 2011 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in GoPets v. Hise, __ F.3d __, (9th Cir. 2011) that ownership of a domain name is a property right. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that that the term "registration" under the ACPA applies to the very first time a domain name is registered. Rights which existed at the time a domain name was registered (e.g. that the registration was not in "bad faith" and was not "identical or confusingly similar" to an existing trademark) are not lost simply because the domain name was transferred to a new entity.

In GoPets, the defendant Edward Hise registered the domain name gopets.com in 1999. Hise had a few ides for a site he might develop with the domain name, but never did much with it. In 2004 a Korean company, GoPets Ltd. developed a virtual pet game called GoPets which involved creating and customizing a virtual pet that would live on your computer's desktop.

In October 2004, GoPets Ltd. first approached Hise about buying the GoPets Ltd. domain name. GoPets Ltd. offered a paltry $750 to Hise. This offer was first ignored by Hise and later rejected. Seven months later in May 2005 GoPets Ltd. tried again. Instead of raising its offer, however, it threatened Hise with an ICANN domain dispute claim and lowered its offer to $100.

GoPets Ltd. attempt at intimidating and insulting Hise was fruitless and a dispute before the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") was commenced a year later in May 2006. In July 2006 a WIPO arbitrator decided in favor of Hise. The ruling was simple-- Hise had registered the domain name in 1999 well before the GoPets game was developed in 2004. Hise clearly did not have a bad faith intent to register the domain name at the time he registered it.

A few months after the WIPO decision, GoPets Ltd. increased its offer to $5,000 and then to $40,000. Instead of negotiating, Hise got greedy. In response, Hise sent a four page letter to GoPets Ltd. demanding a ridiculous $5 Million for the domain. Two days after sending this letter, Hise transferred gopets.com from himself to his brother's corporation Digital Overture. This transfer was a critical error by Hise as under prior court rulings this type of transfer was a "new registration" of the domain name which re-set the date of registration from 1999 to 2006.

GoPets Ltd. immediately pounced on this mistake and filed an action in federal court in the Central District of California. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of GoPets Ltd. finding that Digital Overture's "registration" of the gopets.com domain name in 2006 was done after GoPets Ltd. had acquired its trademark rights and was therefore in "bad faith." Hise appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling and held that "registration" under the ACPA refers to the first registration of a domain name. The court found that ownership of a domain name is a property right and rights acquired in a domain name when it is first registered are not lost when that domain name is transferred to a new entity. The court held,

Looking at ACPA in light of traditional property law, however, we conclude that Congress meant “registration” to refer only to the initial registration. It is undisputed that Edward Hise could have retained all of his rights to gopets.com indefinitely if he had maintained the registration of the domain name in his own name. We see no basis in ACPA to conclude that a right that belongs to an initial registrant of a currently registered domain name is lost when that name is transferred to another owner. The general rule is that a property owner may sell all of the rights he holds in property. GoPets Ltd.’s proposed rule would make rights to many domain names effectively inalienable, whether the alienation is by gift, inheritance, sale, or other form of transfer. Nothing in the text or structure of the statute indicates that Congress intended that rights in domain names should be inalienable.

In making this ruling, The Ninth Circuit specifically disagreed with the Third Circuit's decision in Schmidheiny v. Weber, 319 F.3d 581 (3d Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit held that the ACPA applies to domain names registered both before and after the ACPA became law in November 1999 which would allay the concerns the Third Circuit expressed in that case. The Ninth Circuit held,

The Third Circuit assumed that Weber’s initial registration of schmidheiny.com was not covered by § 8131(1)(A) because it had been made before the passage of ACPA. See id. at 581-82. Based on that assumption, the Third Circuit was concerned that holding that re-registration was not “registration” within the meaning of ACPA would “permit the domain names of living persons to be sold and purchased without the living persons’ consent, ad infinitum, so long as the name was first registered before the effective date of the Act.” Id. However, we believe that the Third Circuit erred in assuming that Weber’s initial registration was not covered by ACPA. We agree with the holding of the Second Circuit in Sporty’s Farm that § 1125(d)(1)—and, by extension, § 8131(1)(A)—apply to registrations made before the passage of ACPA. See Sporty’s Farm, 202 F.3d at 496-97. If Weber’s initial registration violated § 8131(1)(A), as we would hold it did, the Third Circuit’s concern evaporates.

So will other circuits adopt the Ninth Circuit's reasoning and find that domain names are property rights? The law does seem to be moving in that direction, but there are always exceptions and exceptional cases which may warrant a different view.

EPILOGUE

So Hise won. Or did he? Perhaps the bigger lesson in this case is how the value of the gopets.com domain name plummeted during the appeal. While today, in 2011 Hise retains his ownership interest in gopets.com, the brand "GoPets" was abandoned in late 2009 when Zynga purchased GoPets Ltd.'s assets. Zynga immediately shut down "GoPets" and launched a revamped service, PetVille.

The value of gopets.com is now far less than it was before the GoPets brand was abandoned by Zynga. In retrospect, both parties should have negotiated in good faith. Back in October 2006 Hise should have negotiated with GoPets Ltd. in good faith when it offered $40,000 for the domain name instead making a ridiculous counter-demand for $5 Million. Likewise GoPets Ltd.'s initial offer of $750 and its subsequent offer of $100 were equally ridiculous, if not more so.

The lesson here is two-fold. Failing to negotiate in good faith can lead to unnecessary lawsuits and lawsuits often last longer than internet companies or their brands.

--
About the author
Mark Borghese is a Las Vegas trademark attorney with the law firm of Borghese Legal, Ltd.

Battle of the "Bays": Tradebay vs. eBay

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Borghese) — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:22:00 +0000

[Post by Mark Borghese]

Does an intent-to-use trademark applicant, faced with a trademark office opposition proceeding, have the right to seek declaratory relief in federal court? Or, does the fact that the applicant has not yet used the mark in commerce prevent a federal court from exercising jurisdiction?

Those are the legal question a federal court in the District of Nevada will have to answer in Tradebay v. eBay, Case No. Case 2:11-cv-00702-ECR -PAL.

This dispute began almost two years ago when, on January 6, 2009, Tradebay filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the mark TRADEBAY for various services including "computerized online ordering" and "operating online marketplaces for seller and buyers of goods and/or services."

When Tradebay's trademark was approved by the trademark office and published for opposition, eBay immediately opposed the mark claiming that consumers would confuse Tradebay and eBay. In support of this opposition, eBay cites Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay Inc., 506 F3d 1165 (9th Cir., Nove. 5, 2007) where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the term "BAY" was the dominant portion of the eBay mark. From this ruling, eBay argues that any "generic" + BAY mark in the internet marketplace space is likely to cause confusion and dilute eBay's distinctive mark.

After the opposition was filed, on May 3, 2011, Tradebay filed a declaratory relief action in the United States District Court, District of Nevada. Tradebay wanted a federal court to make the determination as to whether its mark, Tradebay, was likely to be confused with the famous eBay mark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding was thereafter stayed in light of the District Court lawsuit.

On June 28, 2011, eBay filed a motion to dismiss Tradebay's District Court lawsuit alleging that no case or controversy existed for the court to decide. The motion argues that dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is the appropriate remedy as no trademark infringement can exist when Tradebay has not yet used the Tradebay mark in commerce.

Courts enforcing Rule 12(b)(6) curtail this risk by weeding out complaints that fail to give rise to a plausible inference of harm to the plaintiff. Neither eBay nor the Court should be required to expend the resources necessary to litigate the merits of claims of trademark infringement and dilution and unfair competition based on nothing more than vague and conclusory allegations that fail to evince the specific and concrete steps to use the mark that might give rise to a controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. Dismissal is the appropriate remedy here.

Tradebay filed an opposition to the motion on August 2, 2011, arguing that the "case or controversy" standard has been met and pointing out that as early as January 30, 2009 Tradebay received a cease and desist letter from eBay accusing it of infringing and diluting eBay's trademark rights.

Tradebay’s complaint presents an "actual controversy" within the meaning of the caselaw. Specifically, almost immediately after Tradebay filed its trademark application, eBay sent a cease and desist letter. If Tradebay refused eBay's demands, eBay threatened to "take whatever actions eBay deems necessary to protect its rights." Exhibit 2-A. eBay reaffirmed the identical threat a few days later. Exhibit 2-B. Once Tradebay’s application was accepted for publication, eBay opposed it in the USPTO. Exhibit 3-A.

In its reply brief filed August 25, 2011, eBay argues again that no case or controversy exists as Tradebay has not taken any concrete steps to actually use its Tradebay mark, such as developing a product line, conducting market research, or creating packaging and advertising.

Tradebay makes no attempt to show that it has alleged, let alone actually undertaken, any concrete steps to actually use the TRADEBAY mark in connection with any goods or services. At best, Tradebay has alleged nothing more than a vague and indefinite desire to use the TRADEBAY mark at some future date. That does not come close to showing a real and immediate controversy. Tradebay's utter failure to allege the requisite concrete steps can only lead to the conclusion that it has not engaged in any such activity. Under these circumstances, it would be a waste of the Court's (and eBay's) time and resources to render what would amount to an impermissible advisory opinion as to whether activities Tradebay may or may not undertake in the future would infringe or dilute eBay's trademarks.

Under the facts in this case, eBay argues that Tradebay is simply requesting that the court issue an improper advisory opinion rather than settle an actual trademark infringement dispute involving two competing marks being used in commerce.

The briefing on this issue is now closed and an order from the court is expected within the next ninety days. This ruling will be an interesting one to watch.

About the author
Mark Borghese is a Las Vegas internet attorney with the law firm of Borghese Legal, Ltd.

Another Epic Trademark Battle Prematurely Ends With Amicable, Reasonable Settlement

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 00:55:00 +0000

Tropicana Las Vegas

In one of my longer blog posts last year (link here), I detailed the convoluted and complicated history of the TROPICANA Hotel/Casino trademark – a fascinating look at how trademark rights are handled in the course of multiple large scale corporate transactions (including bankruptcy proceedings) and how certain things can (and indeed do) fall through the cracks.

What started out as a simple declaratory judgment action in Nevada state court by the new owners of the Tropicana Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas regarding their long-time right to use the name Tropicana in connection with that specific hotel/casino located at the intersection of Las Vegas Blvd. and Tropicana Avenue blew up into an epic lawsuit filed in Delaware Bankruptcy Court by a group of companies lead by Carl Icahn's Tropicana Entertainment Inc. The matters had been fully briefed by both sides and were awaiting a court hearing.

But alas, now we’ll never know how exactly the bankruptcy court would’ve unraveled the convoluted trademark issues raised by Tropicana Entertainment’s adversary proceeding (we know how the Clark County District Court decided those issues, but that is in part what led to Tropicana Entertainment to file the adversary proceeding it did in bankruptcy court).

As reported by VegasInc’s Steve Green (link here), the parties announced in mid-August that they had reached a Settlement that resolves the outstanding trademark disputes and which provides for an agreement regarding concurrent use by both parties of the mark TROPICANA. A copy of the Settlement Agreement, with all of its provisions regarding concurrent use of the Tropicana name by the respective parties, can be viewed here.

In short, Tropicana Las Vegas can continue to use the mark TROPICANA LAS VEGAS (or TROP LAS VEGAS) or TROPICANA LV (or TROP LV) in the city of Las Vegas, Nevada and within a 50 mile radius from the present location of the Tropicana Las Vegas Hotel and Casino. Tropicana Las Vegas can promote itself worldwide so long as it always mentions the property location. Tropicana Las Vegas does not get any other rights to use the mark TROPICANA, TROP, or any variation thereof apart from its rights to use the mark in reference to its Las Vegas property (although a small exception is made for on-property signage and certain marketing campaigns such as “Trop ‘Til You Drop” and “Trop Party Pass” so long as there is also a reference to the Las Vegas location). The agreement expressly consents to Tropicana Las Vegas’s use of the following logo

and clarifies that in any other logos used by Tropicana Las Vegas, the Las Vegas (or LV) portion of the mark shall not be smaller or less prominent in proportion to TROPICANA or TROP than as reflected in the above logo.

As for what Tropicana Entertainment gets out the deal, it gets the exclusive rights to use TROPICANA and TROP, but provided that it also is accompanied by some other mark indicating either a geographic location (other than Las Vegas obviously) or some other mark to identify services currently offered by Tropicana Entertainment (e.g., Tropicana Advantage).

The Agreement also deals with how the parties will handle present and future trademark registrations for marks using TROPICANA, use of their respective marks on the Internet, and issues relating to enforcement of rights in their respective territories.

By entering into this Settlement Agreement (with concurrent use provision regarding the trademark rights), the parties certainly ended up doing the smart thing in reaching an amicable settlement – bringing to a halt a dispute that had likely cost the parties millions of dollars in attorney fees and costs (fees that would have continued to be incurred given the high stakes) and doing so in a way that brings certainty to the rights of the parties moving forward. And it was probably the fair outcome given the long-time association that the world does have with the name Tropicana in connection with that particular hotel in Las Vegas while at the same time recognizing Tropicana Entertainment's investment in the name outside of Las Vegas.

Of course, at the same time, it would’ve been interesting to see which way the bankruptcy court would have sided in this dispute (and the legal rationale for such decision).

Mystic Lodge Loses Trademark Battle with Mystic Lake

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Borghese) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:26:00 +0000

Mystic Lake Casino Hotel in Minnesota

[Post by Mark Borghese]

As first reported by Steve Green, Mystic Lodge casino in Henderson ("Mystic Lodge") lost its trademark dispute with the Mystic Lake Casino Hotel in Minnesota ("Mystic Lake"). This case was first discussed on this blog here. In a July 25, 2011 order, U.S. District Judge James Mahan issued a Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction against Mystic Lodge ordering it to change its name.

Mystic Lodge Casino in Henderson, Nevada

The chips were stacked against Mystic Lodge from the beginning of this case. Not only are the two marks, Mystic Lodge and Mystic Lake substantially similar, but both marks are for the same services. Moreover, the senior user, Mystic Lake has been using its servicemark for almost twenty years and has multiple federal registrations.

Although a small Henderson, Nevada casino with no hotel and a large Minnesota Indian hotel casino resort may seem worlds apart, the Minnesota tribe which runs Mystic Lake argued in its Motion for Summary Judgment that both casinos operate on a national level and compete for the same customers.

[T]he undisputed evidence supports the conclusion that Mystic Lake Casino and Mystic Lodge Casino operate in a market that includes a nation-wide consumer base. First, more than 100 of the same individuals appear in both Mystic Lake Casino and Mystic Lodge Casino’s respective player databases… Mystic Lake and Mystic Lodge also have player databases that include residents of all 50 states… Both Mystic Lake and Mystic Lodge casino services expressly cater to travelers and tourists… In fact, both parties have thousands of customers in Nevada alone…. Simply put, [Mystic Lake] and [Mystic Lodge] compete for the same discretionary consumer dollar—Mystic Lodge is a competitor of Mystic Lake.

Mystic Lodge attempted to argue the Dawn Donut rule as a defense to the issuance of an injunction against it. That rule, first set out in the case Dawn Donut Co., Inc. v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959) provides a defense to the issuance of an injunction against a good faith junior user of a trademark which adopts the mark without knowledge of the federally registered mark and which operates in a geographically separate and distinct trading area to the senior user.

Judge Mahan however, ruled that the Dawn Donut defense was not applicable to the facts before the court because Mystic Lodge had actual knowledge of the federal registration for Mystic Lake, but decided to adopt the mark anyway.

The defendants argue under Dawn Donut that when two marks are confined to sufficiently distinct and geographically separate markets, without evidence that the registrant will expand to the defendant’s market, the plaintiff is not entitled to enjoin the junior user’s mark. See 267 F.2d at 364. Further, the “injunctive remedy does not ripen until the registrant shows a likelihood of entry into the disputed territory.” McCarthy, supra, at § 26:33. In the alternative, the defendants’ assert that there is a presumption of good faith since an opinion letter from counsel permitted the use of the mark. The court disagrees.

Here, the Dawn Donut defense does not apply to the plaintiff’s ability to receive injunctive relief due to the bad faith shown. The defendants received actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s registered mark through counsel, ignored requests for alternate names, and disobeyed express recommendations on how to limit the possibility of infringement. Although the final opinion letter by counsel timidly approved the use of the mark with certain limitations, the email from counsel advising that the mark was already registered and the senior user would aggressively protect it disallows the final opinion to serve as a rubber stamp for the defendants’ actions. “The Ninth Circuit does not . . . insulate the defendant from a finding of willful infringement based on advice of counsel of noninfringement.” Monster Cable Prods., Inc. v. Discovery Commn’s, Inc., No. C 03-03250, 2004 WL 2445348, *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2004) (citing Wolfe v. Nat’l Lead Co., 272 F.2d 867, 871 (9th Cir. 1959).

The lesson, of course, is to follow the recommendations of your attorney. Moreover, if you are willing to spend the money to get an attorney’s opinion about potential trademarks, use the advice to pick a name that (1) not federally registered and (2) is not the name used by a competitor in the United States for the same goods and services you want to sell.

The Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction prevents Mystic Lodge from,

(a) Distributing, displaying, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, and/or selling any goods or services using the mark Mystic Lodge Casino, or any other phrase, slogan, or business name that incorporates the word “Mystic” (a “Mystic Mark”);

(b) Affixing a Mystic Mark to any product, advertisement, point of sale material, interior/exterior signage or other promotional material;

(c) Disseminating any product, advertisement, point of sale material, signage or other promotional material containing or incorporating a Mystic Mark;

(d) Registering any domain name which includes the word “mystic” or any Mystic Mark; and

(e) Registering and/or applying for any trademark registration for a Mystic Mark.

The Judgment also gives Mystic Lake sixty (60) days to provide written confirmation that it is no longer using the Mystic Lodge mark and transfer all domain names which include the Mystic Lodge Mark to Minnesota casino.

Mystic Lodge has now filed an emergency motion to stay the ruling pending it’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit. In the motion, Mystic Lodge argues,

If a stay is not granted, Defendants face the risk of being put out of business complying with a permanent injunction before having been ultimately found by a jury not to have infringed upon Plaintiff's mark. Equally important, Plaintiff will not be harmed by a temporary stay of the permanent injunction pending appeal.

Of course Mystic Lodge can simply change its name and re-brand its business. While such a move may be expensive, so is an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case once again highlights the importance of local Las Vegas businesses obtaining national trademark protection for their brands.

About the author
Mark Borghese is a Las Vegas business attorney with the law firm of Borghese Legal, Ltd.

A Lot of Love in Las Vegas Lately

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:01:00 +0000

[or alternatively, "Anything You Can Trademark, I Can Trademark Better."]

Earlier this year, as local Las Vegas hotel-casino chain Station Casinos was emerging from bankruptcy, it made a large splash about its new marketing campaign focusing on the locals market in Las Vegas and embracing the marketing slogan WE LOVE LOCALS (news story on the rebranding here).

So what did rival hotel-casino South Point decide to do? Came up with its own marketing slogan that not only is able to take advantage of the notoriety developed by Station Casinos in its LOVE mark, but able to clearly distinguish itself from Station Casinos at the same time (South Point's "Love" website here).

Clever comparative marketing (if you ask me) -- I wonder how Station Casinos feels about sharing the love.

Golden Nugget's Cybersquatting Campaign

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 03:55:00 +0000

GNLV, Corp., the company which owns the Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino in downtown Las Vegas (as well as Golden Nuggets in Laughlin and Atlantic City), continues its campaign to go after cybersquatters. After a two year lull of filing any type of cybersquatting lawsuits, GNLV has now filed five since April 27, 2011. [Ed.—Is this perhaps a sign of the improving economy that a gaming company is willing to invest the money to pursue such lawsuits in order to obtain (and/or prevent others from using) domain names of questionable value?]

In late April, GNLV Corp sued German resident Luca Mueller over the domain golddennugget.com (with an extra “d” in the spelling of Golden) which GNLV alleged linked to an online gambling site. See GNLV, Corp. v. Mueller, Case No. 11-cv-00663 (D. Nev. Filed April 27, 2011). (VegasInc article here.) Later in May, GNLV Corp. sued Kanter Associates over the domain name thegoldennuggett.com (with an extra “t” in the spelling of Nugget) which GNLV alleged linked to a travel reservation website. See GNLV, Corp. v. Kanter Associates SA, Case No. 11-cv-00827 (D. Nev. Filed May 20, 2011). (VegasInc article here.)

On May 31, 2011, GNLV filed three more cybersquatting lawsuits. The first lawsuit against Harald Ebert relates to the domain name www.goldennugget.info, which GNLV claims is linked to a website which offers “links to many of the same wagering games that are offered at Plaintiff’s casino resorts, such as Blackjack, Poker and Slots.” See GNLV, Corp. v. Mueller, Case No. 11-cv-00875 (D. Nev.). The second lawsuit against Marco Eckstein relates to the domain name www.golden-nugget-jackpot.com, which GNLV claims is linked to a website which offers “links to many of the same wagering games that are offered at Plaintiff’s casino resorts, such as slots.” See GNLV, Corp. v. Eckstein, Case No. 11-cv-00878 (D. Nev.). The third lawsuit against Hilary Moore involves the domain name www.seventysevengoldennuggets.com. See GNLV, Corp. v. Moore, Case No. 11-cv-00873 (D. Nev.). As for why GNLV can claim that the registration of this last domain name, which would be perceived by almost anybody as “77 Golden Nuggets” and not likely associated with GNLV’s GOLDEN NUGGET mark, constitutes cybersquatting? It would be because, according to the complaint, the domain name is linked to “a site offering a direct link to the Golden Nugget resort-hotel travel and reservation services, including a direct link to Plaintiff’s property located in Las Vegas, Nevada.” [ed.—might’ve been an easier case to defend had Defendant used the website in connection a gold mining business].

Of course, while I didn’t review the particular website printout exhibits attached to each complaint, a quick visit to each of the above domain names shows that they are your typical “landing page” offering various pay-per-click (“PPC”) generated ads (some of which may, as GNLV alleges, go to websites offering “the same wagering games offered by Plaintiff’s casino resorts” or to “resort-hotel travel and reservation services”). Are any of these particular websites truly causing economic harm to GNLV? Highly doubtful. So why is GNLV spending money filing lawsuits to go after domains that don’t really have much direct value for GNLV (and are certainly not diverting any business to GNLV’s own hotel/casino)? Perhaps simply because it can . . . and because it’s not as costly as you might think

When one considers that the minimum cost that a trademark owner would incur to file a domain name arbitration action under the UDRP is around $3000 (including fees paid for the arbitrator) and with an uncertain outcome (as anybody who has been involved in UDRP arbitrations will tell you), these lawsuits are a much much more cost effective way for a company to obtain possession of these domain names ($300 lawsuit filing fee, $100 bond, and maybe around $500-$1000 per case for attorneys fees and costs (assuming great economies of scale), since most of the documents are nearly identical and can be prepared mostly by administrative staff). In addition, unlike in a UDRP action, the lawsuit route allows the complainant to make a claim towards statutory damages for cybersquatting (minimum $1000 up to $100000 per domain name). Given the low likelihood that the Defendants will even respond to the complaints, each lawsuit has the strong potential to garner a $100,000 default judgment (albeit a judgment that is more often than not nearly impossible to collect).

Still, even at a price of about $1000 per domain name, one wonders why GNLV wants to invest even that amount of money for some of the domain names it is seeking. All GNLV is doing is preventing other third parties from obtaining a relatively minuscule amount of PPC revenue from the PPC ads showcased on the landing pages for each of these websites. As for the websites involving typosquatting, I continue to maintain that the vast majority of web users looking for GNLV’s GOLDEN NUGGET are saavy enough with respect to internet browsing that they will not be sidetracked by a landing page that offers links to an online casino or other hotel/casino – and will instead recognize their typo and retype the correct URL address or perform a search using one of the more popular internet search engines (which are certainly not fooled by these websites). When all is said and done, GNLV will be the proud owner of several domain names that will likely do very little in promoting the GOLDEN NUGGET brand and will generate very little additional traffic for GNLV's websites (along with very little additional revenue) beyond what GNLV would’ve already had, but which GNLV now will have to continue to pay annual registration fees in order to maintain these domain names. But I guess GNLV considers that fee (along with the fees paid to its lawyers for these sutis) a small price to pay to prevent domainers from making a single penny (literally) off of the GOLDEN NUGGET mark.

[UPDATE (July 26, 2011) -- Ron Coleman's Likelihood of Confusion® blog provides his response to my query here -- along with a shameless proposal to the people at the Golden Nugget to "handle their cost-effectiveness-be-damned domain trademark enforcement programs."]

Egg Works Loses 9th Circuit Appeal Despite No Opposition From Egg World

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:01:00 +0000

The owners of the Las Vegas breakfast restaurants The Egg & I and Egg Works got another dose of egg on their face when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision to deny the restaurant chain's motion for preliminary injunction that had been sought against a competing Las Vegas restaurant named Egg World (which did not even file any kind of brief in the appeal).

Last June, Bradley Burdsall, along with his two companies Egg Works, Inc. and Egg Works 2, LLC (collectively “Egg Works”), brought a trademark infringement lawsuit against Egg World, LLC, and two of its principals, Gabrijel Krstanovic, and Dejan Debeljak (collectively “Egg World”). See Egg Works, Inc. et al v. Egg World LLC et al, Case No. 10-cv-01013 (D. Nev.). On September 14, 2010, the lower court entered an order denying Egg Works’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (a copy of that order can be viewed here). For my previous blog post discussing the lower court’s decision, click here.

Because the counsel of record for Egg World in the lower court case withdrew from the case soon after the court’s decision (the basis for withdraw was a dispute over money – an unfortunate, all too common issue in litigations), Egg Works recognized that if it appealed the court’s denial of its motion for preliminary injunction, the Egg World defendants would probably not file any kind of brief in such an appeal. And so Egg Works filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the lower court's decision to deny Egg Works’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. And if the defendants don’t file an any kind of brief in the appeal, Egg Works would easily win, right? Well as this case aptly demonstrates, that’s not necessarily true.

On September 27, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision rendered without oral argument (and without the benefit of any kind of briefs from the Egg World defendants) affirmed the Nevada District Court’s decision to deny Egg Works’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Egg Works, Inc., et al v. Egg World LLC, et al, Appeal No. 10-17534 (9th Cir. April 27, 2011) (unpublished). A copy of the decision can be downloaded here.

The decision is fairly straightforward, with the Court of Appeals finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court in denying Egg Works’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction:

The district court correctly identified the legal standard for likelihood of confusion of a trademark, its findings were not clearly erroneous, and the district court did not clearly err in finding no likelihood of confusion concerning appellants’ trademark. See AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that appellants failed to meet the requirements to merit preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

So where does the case go from here? Well, assuming Egg Works decides not to waste any more money by seeking reconsideration or appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, the case goes back to Nevada district court and continues to move forward. But with Egg World not currently represented by counsel, Egg Works will now be able to obtain a default and seek a default judgment against thecompany. And Egg Works may try to seek defaults against the individual defendants as well, who have not show any particular interest in continuing the fight in court (even though they did win both at the lower court and on appeal – although admittedly only at an early preliminary stage).

Of course, given that the Egg World restaurant that gave Egg Works so much heartburn last year closed down earlier this year [Comment—I know from firsthand experience that running a restaurant is tough, and probably more so in these economic times], does Egg Works really want to continue to spend legal fees fighting this out after suffering two battle defeats – even after having essentially won the war at the end of the day? We shall see.

[Full Disclosure: My law firm has represented one of the Defendants in other legal matters, but did not represent any of the Defendants in this case.]

Caesars Palace Files Declaratory Judgment Action Over OCTAVIUS TOWER

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:30:00 +0000

In so many trademark lawsuit stories that grab the media’s attention, the story is often one of a large corporation enforcing its trademark rights against individuals and small businesses in a manner that is often described as “trademark bullying” (but which, of course, from the corporation’s perspective could be seen as zealous protection of the company’s valuable trademark rights). The story behind this lawsuit is quite the opposite – in this case, it is the large corporation that is being bullied (or more accurately, majorly inconvenienced since a large corporation has sufficient resources to fight a legal battle in court) by an individual that is seeking to enforce highly questionable trademark rights.

On April 8, 2011, Caesars World, Inc. (“Caesars”), the owner of the CAESARS PALACE brand of hotel-casinos (including Caesars Palace in Las Vegas), filed a declaratory judgment action against a German man named Marcel July and his Nevada limited liability company, Octavius Tower LLC, based on the defendants claims to have exclusive ownership rights to the mark OCTAVIUS TOWER and demands that Caesars stop using the name in connection with a hotel tower. See Caesars World, Inc. v. July et al, Case No. 11-cv-00536 (D. Nev. April 8, 2011). A copy of the complaint (with exhibits) can be downloaded here.

Back in 2007, Caesars World’s parent company, Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. (which has since been renamed Caesars Entertainment Corporation) announced a $1 billion expansion of the Caesars Palace Hotel-Casino in Las Vegas. One of the new hotel towers built as part of the expansion was going to be named the “Octavius Tower” (going along with Caesars “Roman” themed hotel/casino – presumably named after Julius Caesar’s adopted nephew, Gaius Octavius [for you Roman history scholars, feel free to correct me]).

The Octavius Tower at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas

Two days after Caesars’ announcement regarding its plans to build Octavius Tower, Mr. July, being the enterprising fellow that he appears to be, decided to registered several domain names such as octaviustowercom; octaviustowers.com; octaviustowerlasvegas.com; and octaviustowerslasvegas.com. The same day, July also registered the domain namescaesarstower.com; caesarstowers.com; caesarspalacetower.com; caesarspalacetowers.com; and caesarspalacetowerslasvegas.com. The websites at those domain names promoted that “The new Caesars Palace Towers are Coming Soon” and that the domain names were for sale (see Exhibit B of the Complaint). Caesars filed domain name arbitration actions against July under the UDRP with respect to those domain names that incorporated the mark Caesars Palace (but chose not to go after the Octavius Tower domain names without any trademark registration). The domain names were transferred to Caesars after the arbitrator determined that the domain names had been registered in bad faith. See Caesars World, Inc. v Marcel July Ra Christian Kaldenhoff, Nat'l Arb. Forum, FA 0801001126341 (March 3, 2008).

On July 20, 2007, Caesars filed its own intent-to-use application for the mark OCTAVIUS TOWER for “hotel services.” The application was allowed by the PTO on January 29, 2008; however, because of well-publicized construction delays due to lack of funding after the major downturn in the economy (see news articles here and here), Caesars was not able to provide a Statement of Use before the January 29, 2011 deadline and the application went abandoned (although Caesars, anticipating that its original application would go abandon, filed a new application on December 10, 2010).

Of course, what happened during the interim? Mr. July filed his own trademark registration applications with the PTO for the mark Octavius Tower in connection with entertainment services – specifically on May 7, 2008, July filed for the mark OCTAVIUS TOWER for “Entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring musical performances, musical videos, related film clips and photographs”. A registration was issued September 1, 2009. [Query—given that Caesars was already aware of Mr. July propensity for opportunism as illustrated by his domain name registrations and the fact that the marks were identical, why didn’t Caesar file an Opposition against Mr. July’s applications when it had the chance?] On July 23, 2009, July filed a second application for OCTAVIUS TOWER for “Entertainment in the nature of visual and audio performances, and musical, variety, news and comedy shows; Presentation of live show performances; Theatrical and musical floor shows provided at discotheques and nightclubs; Theatrical and musical floor shows provided at performance venues.” A registration for this second application issued on January 12, 2010. In addition to these federal registrations, July also filed three Nevada state trademark registrations for the mark OCTAVIUS TOWER in connection with entertainment services (here, here, and here) as well as a Florida trademark registration. Caesars alleges in its complaint that July has not used the mark in connection with any of the entertainment services identified in the registration (while I have not reviewed the specimens of use submitted by July in order to get his marks registered, I would not be surprised if they are questionable on their face).

Given that the PTO allowed Mr. July’s applications to register despite Caesars pending application for OCTAVIUS TOWER for hotel services, one would naturally not expect Caesars second application for OCTAVIUS TOWER to encounter any objections from the PTO, right? Wrong. On February 24, 2011, the PTO issued a non-final office action rejecting Caesars new application on the basis of a likelihood of confusion with Mr. July’s registration. So what did Mr. July do once he learned of the rejection? He got an attorney to send a cease and desist letter to Caesars (see Exhibit D of the Complaint) demanding that Caesars stop using Mr. July’s “trademarked name” Octavius Tower in any manner and threatening to pursue “all legal remedies available to him.” Caesars counsel wrote back on March 21, 2011, arguing no likelihood of confusion and offering to enter into a coexistence agreement. On March 23, 2011, July’s attorney later wrote back rejecting the coexistence agreement and reiterating the threat to take legal action. Subsequently, July purportedly modified his website at http://www.octaviustower.com/ to add a page that includes Caesars' 2007 announcement of its plan to launch Octavius Tower and includes copies of the correspondence July’s counsel sent to Caesars along with the message to the public about Caesars “infringement” of July’s trademark rights:

Public awareness of this unacceptable corporate behavior is crucial to eradicating it and we are asking you to take a stand and make a difference on this issue. Your collective voice is more compelling than the lobbying power of corporate giants and it is a voice that cannot be ignored. Together we can make a difference and help keep our freedom intact, for us, for our children, and for our grandchildren.

Caesars, recognizing its opportunity to file a declaratory judgment action against Mr. July in order to redress this mess, filed the instant action. In addition to seeking declarations of non-infringement of Mr. July’s trademark rights, Caesars also seeks to cancel July’s federal and state trademark registrations on the basis of non-use and fraud.

So with all of Mr. July’s talk about enforcing his trademark rights, we shall see how important those marks truly are to him and how strongly he feels about his trademark rights (and the strenghth of such rights). Too many individuals seem to have this impression that registration of a particular mark is the end-all-be-all for solidifying exclusive rights to a particular term. But registration is merely prima facie evidence of trademark rights. If you don't actually have any underlying trademark rights to a mark (i.e., some associated goodwill that the consuming public associates with your mark and thegoods/serivces sold using the mark), then you will not be entitled to make a claim of exclusive rights to a term (especially against a third party using the mark in connection with a substantially differnet good or service).

And while I suspect that Mr. July may try to turn this dispute into a "David vs. Goliath" battle (as reflected by his website) of a large corporation using its corporate power and the legal system to steal his valuable trademark, this is one time where I side with the big company.

My Sentiments Exactly. . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Gile) — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:44:00 +0000

The title of this blog post by Ron Coleman on his Likelihood of Confusion® blog says it all (along with a snazzy new blog layout).

And let this be a reminder to all of us to review those blogrolls on occasion to see which ones remain active and which ones have long since given up the grind that is blogging (and in doing so, I hope that you will consider this blog as an “active” one despite the infrequency of blog posts as of late).