Lanham Act 43(a) - 15 USC 1125 Category Archives — Page 5 of 17 — Los Angeles Intellectual Property Trademark Attorney Blog Published by Patent Application, Trademark Litigation and Copyright Litigation Lawyers, Milord & Associates, PC

Court Dismisses Carroll Shelby’s Trademark and Trade Dress Lawsuit Against Factory Five Racing

February 19, 2010 | Milord A. Keshishian

Car racing legend Carroll Shelby sued Factory Five Racing in California last year for trademark and trade dress infringement (details here). The District Court in Los Angeles granted Factory Five’s motion and transferred the case to Massachusetts (details here and here). The Massachusetts District Court has now dismissed Shelby’s Daytona Coupe trade dress action with prejudice (it cannot be re-filed) and has dismissed the rest of the complaint without prejudice. The Court, however, declined to dismiss Shelby’s lawsuit against co-defendant Internet Community Partners, LLC – doing business as ffcobra.com. (Order is available here).

With respect to the Daytona Coup trade dress infringement claim, the Court held that it was barred by doctrine of res judicata and the terms of the settlement agreement:

In this case, the settlement agreement resolved the Type 65 trade dress claims and did not bar FFR from using the Type 65 kits, which have apparently not broadened or changed in the intervening years. Under the settlement agreement, “Shelby dismisse[d] with prejudice all claims that have been asserted or could have been asserted relative to the trade dress or designs of FFR’s kits, including but not limited to the kits known as the 427 Roadster and the Type 65 Coupe.” (FFR’s Mem., Ex. B ¶ 9 (emphasis added).) Shelby’s argument that the first suit only involved the 427 S/C contradicts the plain language of the settlement, which dismissed all claims “relative to the trade dress or designs of FFR’s kits” involving Factory Five’s Type 65 Coupe, not merely those relating to the trade dress of the 427 S/C. Moreover, the Final Judgment included numerous, specific references to both the name and design of the Daytona Coupe.

Dr. Dre Sues Death Row Records, Now Owned By A Trademark Attorney – That’s Gangsta

February 15, 2010 | Milord A. Keshishian

LA, CA – Dr. Dre, whose real name is Andre Young, sued the new Death Row records for trademark infringement, breach of contract, violation of the right of publicity, and unfair competition. The complaint claims that nothing has changed at Death Row: “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” and alleges:

Whether you get thugged or the check just doesn’t come, it’s all the same — someone else has your money. And whether it’s a platitude-spouting, self-proclaimed soccer mom or a supposed gangster who isn’t paying you, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re not getting paid. Read the complaint here.

The rap star and record producer co-founded Death Row records in 1991 with Marion “Suge” Knight and began the gangsta rap movement. Few, however, remember Dr. Dre’s “less Gangsta” side when he was on the turntables for the World Class Wreckin Cru – but I digress. The parties verbally agreed that in exchange for payment of royalties to Dr. Dre, Death Row received a non-exclusive license to release sound recordings that he produced, composed and/or performed on. Dr. Dre’s first record release under the Death Row label was “The Chronic” in 1992, which was a huge success.

Major League Baseball Sues Upper Deck For Trademark Infringement And Unfair Competition Over Baseball Trading Cards

February 2, 2010 | Milord A. Keshishian

New York — Major League Baseball Properties sued the Upper Deck Company for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, and breach of contract because Upper Deck continues to print baseball trading cards after its license was terminated. A copy of the complaint is available here. MLBP pulls no punches and extensively refers to the recent Court ruling that Upper Deck counterfeited hundreds of thousands of Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards, its agreement to a multi-million dollar settlement and permanent injunction (details here).

MLBP ended its twenty-year relationship with Upper Deck and entered into an exclusive agreement with Topps “to use the MLB trademarks on trading cards for retail distribution beginning on January 1, 2010.” MLBP also alleges that Upper Deck failed to pay in excess of $2 Million under its prior licensing agreement. “Notwithstanding the expiration of the Upper Deck License Agreements as of October 31, 2009, and the absence of any new license from MLBP authorizing the use of the MLB Marks, Upper Deck has begun manufacturing, distributing, offering for sale, and selling at least three trading card sets featuring cards using the MLB Marks, including, without limitation, the MLB Uniform Trade Dress and MLB Caps and Helmet Logos.” In addition to monetary damages, MLBP seeks to enjoin Upper Deck’s manufacture and sale of the 2009 Signature Stars Series, 2009 Ultimate Collection Series, and 2010 Unauthorized Series I trading cards.

All may not be lost for Upper Deck, however, because it could rely on the denial of preliminary injunction ruling in the similarly situated Pacific Trading Card case. The case is Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. The Upper Deck Company, LLC, 10-cv-732-RWS (SDNY 2010).

Jury Trial Begins In Upper Deck Yu Gi Oh! Counterfeiting Case

January 27, 2010 | Milord A. Keshishian

UPDATE 1/27/2010: Upper Deck settles Yu Gi Oh! counterfeiting case. Details here.

Los Angeles, CA – Despite the Court’s finding that Upper Deck counterfeited Yu Gi Oh! cards (details here) and advising the parties to settle the damages phase through mediation, the jury trial to determine damages has commenced (Court’s calendar is here). If there ever was a case to settle early to avoid damage to a company’s reputation – which reputation and lifeline is founded on authenticating autographs and memorabilia, this would have been it.

The Cult-Stuff provides a chronology of events in the Konami v. Upper Deck Yu Gi Oh! counterfeiting battle here.

Uncharitable Trademark Dispute Over Eagles Word and Design – Grand Aerie vs. Eagles Clubs

January 24, 2010 | Milord A. Keshishian

Los Angeles, CA – Grand Aerie of the Fraternal Order of Eagles (FOE) sued Eables Clubs International, Inc. and Eagles Clubs International Foundation, Inc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition. FOE is a non-profit fraternal organization that has been engaged in social, civic and charitable activities since the 1890’s. FOE uses numerous “Eagles” trademarks, including logos, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

Defendants are also a non-profit fraternal organization engaged in social, civic and charitable activities. Defendants use “Eagles” trademarks and logos incorporating an eagle design. FOE alleges that Defendants have registered the eaglesclubs.org domain name in bad faith in an effort to divert consumers from FOE’s online location. Defendants are accused of adopting the confusingly similar marks with prior knowledge of Plaintiff’s trademarks. The case is Grand Aerie of the Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Eagles Clubs International, Inc., et al., CV10-0357 RSWL (Cal. 2010).

Shaquille O’Neal Files “SHAQTUS” Trademark Infringement Lawsuit In Las Vegas

January 17, 2010 | Milord A. Keshishian

Las Vegas, NV – Shaquille O’Neal has had numerous nicknames throughout his NBA basketball career. But his SHAQTUS nickname, which he assumed when he was traded to the Phoenix Suns in 2008, has become the prickly subject of a trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and right of publicity lawsuit. O’Neal has exclusively licensed his “Shaq” trademarks and his name, image, and likeness to his Mine O’Mine, Inc. corporation – the Plaintiff in the case.

Michael Calmese, Dan Mortensen, and their True Fan Logo, Inc. are the named defendants. On the day that Shaquille was traded to Phoenix, Mortensen registered the domain name and, shortly thereafter, the domain name. Defendants’ website features a cactus character that allegedly has O’Neal’s facial features and wears an orange number 32 basketball jersey – Shaq’s number with the Suns. Defendants sell clothing and other products bearing the SHAQTUS trademark and/or the character.

In 2008 and 2009, ESPN aired commercials featuring O’Neal and a cactus with O’Neal’s facial features. On December 4, 2009, Defendant Calmese allegedly sent a letter to ESPN claiming ownership of the SHAQTUS trademark and proposing a joint-development business arrangement to resolve the dispute. On December 29, 2009, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a cease and desist letter to Defendants demanding the transfer of the domain names. On January 4, 2010, Defendant Calmese responded and allegedly claimed that O’Neal consented to his use of the SHAQTUS mark when O’Neal agreed to take a picture with Calmese and autograph a T-shirt.

UGG® Competitor Sued For Patent Infringement & Lanham Act Unfair Competition Over Boots

January 14, 2010 | Milord A. Keshishian

Los Angeles, CA – UGG® boot manufacturer, Deckers Outdoor, filed a patent infringement and unfair competition lawsuit against Claire’s Stores and CBI Distributing. UGG® boots have set a fashion trend with young ladies wearing the lamb-skinned boots – to keep their feet and calves warm – with shorts, thereby allowing their knees and thighs to freeze. That’s not in the complaint, it’s just a personal observation. Now back to the regularly scheduled complaint: the UGG® line of boots includes the Classic Cardy™, which was introduced in 2007 and has a crochet upper with buttons on the lateral side. The Classic Cardy™ boot is the subject of U.S. Design Patent No. D582,650 (“the ‘650 Patent”).

Deckers alleges that Defendants sell allegedly infringing boots under the “Claire’s Botts” mark at significantly lower price points, thereby diminishing the market place for the genuine Cardy Boots™. Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim derives from the alleged sales of infringing boots creating a false association or affiliation with Deckers’ UGG® line of boots.

It’s unclear from the complaint whether Plaintiff is asserting a trade dress infringement claim, but at least they obtained a design patent for the boot – which is not a work protectable by copyright. By doing so, they avoid some costs and expenses in having to conduct surveys to establish trade dress rights and, further, a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The following Federal Circuit opinion provides a great comparison of the level of proof needed for each:

Court Rules That Upper Deck Sold Counterfeit Yu Gi Oh! Cards

January 10, 2010 | Milord A. Keshishian

UPDATE 1/27/2010: Upper Deck settles Yu Gi Oh! counterfeiting case. Details here.

Los Angeles, CA – Yu Gi Oh! owner Konami sued Upper Deck, its former distributor, for selling counterfeit trading cards. (Details here) After hearing both parties’ motions for summary judgment, the Court found that Konami had “presented evidence to establish every element of liability [for] counterfeit activity and violation of federal unfair competition law, pursuant to the Lanham Act, on the part of the [Upper Deck] Defendants.” (Order available here) The Court also found that Upper Deck was liable for common law trademark infringement and California unfair competition under Business & Professions Code § 17200. On the copyright infringement claim, the Court partially found that Upper Deck infringed the “Reverse Art” copyright, which refers to the text that appears on the back of the trading cards. The statement of undisputed facts is available here.

In another order, available here, the Court ruled in Konami’s favor because the “reproduction and/or manufacture of unauthentic cards does not fall within the ‘Approval’ clause of the 2006 Letter of Intent.” Conversely, the Court denied Upper Deck’s motion to limit its liability. In yet more bad news for Upper Deck, in another order that’s available here, the Court found for Konami on Upper Deck’s counterclaims for breach of contract and slander per se.

Jury Finds For Larry Flynt/Hustler On Trademark Infringement, But For Nephews On Rights Of Publicity

December 12, 2009 | Milord A. Keshishian

Los Angeles, CA – Larry Flynt sued his former employees and nephews, Jimmy Flynt, Jr. and Dustin Flynt, for trademark infringement for using the family name in their upstart pornography company. Details blogged here. Larry Flynt also made a claim for violation of his rights of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344. On January 9, 2009, the Court preliminarily enjoined the nephews from using the “FLYNT” mark alone with the distribution of adult material, but allowed the nephews to use their first names in association with their family name on the same products. Details blogged here.

After a three day jury trial, Larry Flynt may have won the battle, but lost the war. LA Time article, here. The jury agreed that the use of the last name FLYNT alone was likely to confuse consumers as to the source of the adult related material and a permanent injunction will issue against the nephews. No monetary damages were sought for the trademark infringement claim. The jury, however, sided with the nephews on Larry’s rights of publicity claim, which contains a mandatory attorneys’ fees provision for the prevailing party. Thus, it looks like Larry will have to pay the nephews’ attorneys’ fees incurred in their defense of the §3344 claim, which they are likely to pursue since Larry allegedly fired their father in retaliation for the sons’ use of the family name. The case is Larry C. Flynt v. Flynt Media Corporation, et al., CV 09-00048 AHM, CV09-8796 JC (C.D. Cal. 2009).

Purse & Handbag Designs Subject of Trade Dress Infringement Lawsuit

December 2, 2009 | Milord A. Keshishian

Los Angeles, CA – Purse and handbag designer Linea Pelle, Inc. filed a trade dress infringement and unfair competition lawsuit against Sabina Handbags & Accessories, Inc. In 2006, Plaintiff alleges that it created the “Dylan Collection” of handbags that “incorporates certain unique and distinctive designs, ornamentation and embellishments that, as a whole, have become the iconic and signature look of the Dylan Collection,” which it defines as follows:

Sound like a square peg in a round hole? Assuming Plaintiff can establish secondary meaning before the infringement began, the definition sounds like a constrained extension of trade dress law. Why not seek design patent protection and avoid the challenges of establishing trade dress rights? But I digress. Plaintiff’s purse incorporating the alleged trade dress is pictured below.

Defendant’s accused product is pictured below.