On May 2, 2018, Burberry Limited sued Target Corporation in the Southern District of New York for trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.

In some instances the products do look similar:

Although in some even Burberry’s products do not look like Burberry’s products:

S

Surely no one has  a monopoly on camel plaid.  It will be interesting to see how broad Burberry’s rights extend, and how close Target came.  For example is this accused design an infringement?

1207.01(a)(ii)(A)Billie Goat Tavern & Grill in Chicago has sued St. Louis-based The Billie Goat Chip Company for trademark infringement, claiming the sale of Billie Goat Chips in Illinois and elsewhere is causing confusion with their tavern.

The brands appeared to have peacefully co-existed for a number of years.  The Tavern was established in 1934, and their mark has been federally registered since 1982.  The Chip Company started in 2009, and their mark has been federally registered since 2010, which registration is now incontestable.

It appears that the Chip Company’s distribution recently expanded to Chicago, which apparently got the Tavern’s goat.  However it also appears that for the first time in 83 years, the Tavern decided to offer burgers and beer in local stores.  The Complaint also reveals Tavern has designs on offering “its iconic chips at retail locations shortly” [¶ 17].  However, from the pictures on their website, you would expect that the Tavern’s iconic chips are Vitner’s chips.

It seems that the Tavern is the source of some of its own problems.  It is a basic premise to trademark law that if you snooze, you lose (this would sound much more authoritative in Latin).  The first user of a mark who does not expand its use after having a reasonable time to do so may lose out to the second comer who does expand.  At the Tavern’s behest the U.S. District Court in Chicago will have to decide whether the Chip Company’s activities are likely to cause confusion, but this question is complicated by the Tavern’s recent belated expansion into retail stores.  The Tavern may have to prove likelihood of confusion based only on its activities prior to the expansion.  The TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii)(A) rejects a per se rule that food and beverage products are confusingly similar to restaurant services.  The Tavern may also have to contend with some third parties, including Billy Goat Ice Cream Co, registered for ice cream (4822106), Billy Goat Coffee Café, which is registered for cafe services (3380184 and 3380185), and Billy Goat Hill Estate, which is registered for wine (3195405).

At first blush, it appears both parties did what they were supposed to, each applying for, obtaining, and maintaining multiple federal trademark registrations for their respective marks.  Yet the parties still find themselves in a dispute.  This case is a reminder that a senior user needs to monitor the marketplace and address subsequent filers and user early on, or risk having new comers establish rights that diminish the first users rights.

This would seem to be an opportunity for collaboration rather than litigation — too bad the parties are probably as stubborn as goats.

In In re I.AM.SYMBOLIC, LLC, [2016-1507, 2016-1508, 2016-1509] (August 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the TTAB affirming the Trademark Examiner’s refusal of registration of the mark I AM on grounds of likelihood of confusion.

After initial refusals of registration of the I AM mark  in Classes 3, 9, and 14, I AM SYMBOLIC amended its description of goods to include the limitation that the goods were “associated with William Adams, professionally known as ‘will.i.am.’”  The Examiner maintained the refusal, and the Board affirmed, noting “we do not see the language as imposing a meaningful limitation on [Symbolic’s] goods in any fashion, most especially with respect to either trade channels or class of purchasers.

Before the Federal Circuit I AM SYMBOLIC argued Symbolic argues that the Board erred in its likelihood of confusion analysis by: (1) holding that the will.i.am restriction is “precatory” and “meaningless” and therefore not considering it in analyzing certain DuPont factors; (2) ignoring third-party use and the peaceful coexistence on the primary and supplemental registers and in the marketplace of other I AM marks; and (3) finding a likelihood of reverse confusion.

Regarding the will.i.am restriction, the Federal Circuit said I AM SYMBOLIC failed to show that the Board erred in finding that the restriction does not impose a meaningful limitation in this case for purposes of likelihood of confusion analysis.  Under a proper analysis of the du Pont factors, the goods are identical or related and the channels of trade are identical, and thus there is a likelihood of confusion.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the purported restriction does not (1) limit the goods “with respect to either trade channels or class of purchasers”; (2) “alter the nature of the goods identified”; or (3) “represent that the goods will be marketed in any particular, limited way, through any particular, limited trade channels, or to any particular class of customers.”  In the absence of meaningful limitations in either the application or the cited registrations, the Board properly presumed that the goods travel through all usual channels of trade and are offered to all normal potential purchasers.

Regarding other I AM marks, the Federal Circuit rejected the argument that because applicant’s class 25 registration had co-existed with the cited class 3, 9 and 14 registrations that there was no likelihood of confusion. The ownership of a registraiton on one class does not give a right to register the same]mark on an expanded line of goods, where the use of the mark covered by such registration would lead to a likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception.

With respect to third party marks, the Federal Circuit found that I AM SYMBOLIC did not show sufficient third party use to raise an issue in classes 3 and 9, and in class 14, the Federal Circuit found that the strength of the similarity of the marks and of the goods was sufficient to any error in
failing to specifically analyze the potential weakness of registrants’ marks based on limited third-party use.

Regarding the alleged finding of “reverse confusion,” the Federal Circuit  attributed the Board’s comments to a response to the arguments about the fame of the applicant being insufficient, not to an express finding of reverse confusion.

Overall, the Federal Circuit found sufficient evidence to support the Board’s finding I.AM confusingly similar to the cited registrations, and sustain the refusal of registered.

In Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC, [2016-1089](May 24, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated a TTAB decision denying cancellation of Fairmont’s Reg. No. 4213619 on the mark ALEC BRADLEY STAR INSIGNIA for cigars, brought by Joseph Phelps Vineyards, owner of Reg. No. 1123429 on the mark INSIGNIA for wines.

In the eyes of the Federal Circuit, the TTAB’s error was in completely discounting fame as a factor once it determined that the mark was not famous.  As a result of this error, the Board did not properly apply the totality of the circumstances standard, which requires considering all the relevant factors on a scale appropriate to their merits.

Although the TTAB correctly acknowledged that fame for confusion purposes
arises as long as a significant portion of the relevant consuming public recognizes the mark as a source indicator, the TTAB applied a legally incorrect standard in applying
an all-or-nothing measure of “fame,” more akin to dilution analysis than likelihood of confusion analysis.

The Federal Circuit found that the record shows appreciation by consumers and the wine market of Vineyards’ INSIGNIA brand, and concluded that it was error to refuse to accord any “fame” to Vineyards’ INSIGNIA mark. The Federal Circuit concluded that the factor of “fame” warrants reasonable weight, among the totality of the circumstances.

It is not clear from the Opinion what upsets Joseph Phelps Vineyards about Fairmont Holding’s ALEC BRADLEY STAR INSIGNIA mark.  Joseph Phelps Vineyards’ registration already co-exists with a registration on COACH INSIGNIA for wines (Reg. No. 1394292, which is incontestable) and a registration on BAHIA INSIGNIAS (Reg. No. 4,604,938).  Even with fame properly considered as a factor, Joseph Phelps Vineyard may not get the result it is seeking.

The Court in Phelan Holdings, Inc. v. Rare Hospitality Management, Inc., [8:15-CV-2294-T-30TBM) (M.D. Fla. March 27, 2017), granted summary judgement that the slogan “You Can’t Fake Steak” is not confusingly similar to “You Can’t Fake Fresh.”

The Court noted that Phelan’s Pinchers Crab Shacks are bright, open air restaurants, painted in pastel colors. The walls are adorned with beachy, Florida-themed decorations, such as driftwood signs, mounted fish, large oars, and Caribbean artifacts. Phelan registered YOU CAN’T FAKE FRESH with the USPTO.   In contrast, Rare’s LongHorn Steakhouse restaurants are a chain of Western-themed casual steakhouse designed as a Texas-style roadhouse. Rare registered YOU CAN’T FAKE STEAK with the USPTO.

On summary judgment Phelan abandoned its confusion claims, asserting only a reverse reverse confusion theory.  The Court noted that Both marks incorporate the common buzz phrase “You Can’t Fake . . .,” but that the last word of each mark, i.e., Fresh vs. Steak, is completely different with a different meaning.  An important fact for the court appeared to that do not encounter either mark apart from the parties’ respective house mark.  The Court discounted Phelan’s linguistic expert because he focused on the first three words of the mark, and ignored the fact that the words “Fresh” and “Steak” are different, and did not account for the parties use of their house marks in connection with their marks,  The Court also attached a lot of significance to the differences in the parties restaurants.  The Court discounted Phelan’s survey evidence because the survey only tested forward confusion (finding between 13% and 26% confusion) , because the Phalen was asserting reverse confusion, not forward confusion.

Based on the Court’s analysis of the seven factors, Phelan failed to adduce sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion between YOU CAN’T FAKE FRESH and YOU CAN’T FAKE STEAK.  This was despite Phalen presenting both a linguistic expert and a survey expert.  Apparently you can’t fake confusion.

On March Adidas American, Inc. sued Juicy Couture, Inc., in the District of Oregon (3:17-cv-00437), alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, deceptive trade practices, and breach of contract.  This suit comes just a few weeks after Forever 21, frustrated by Adidas’ efforts to eliminate stripes from clothing, sued Adidas calling Adidas a “trademark bully.”

Juicy Couture arguably has three stripes on its clothing, but the stripes are not all the same, whether this is different enough to avoid a likelihood of confusion remains to be seen:

Not all enforcement efforts are legitimate, but neither is all enforcement bullying.

The Sporting Times LLC has sued Orion Pictures, inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., and others because of the depiction of a  publication titled The Sporting Times in trailers for, and in the actual movie, Spaceman — a biopic about baseball player Bill “Spaceman” Lee.  What isn’t immediately apparent from the Complaint is that the periodical depicted is fictional.  It is not the plaintiff’s publication, it bears a fictional date nearly two decades before plaintiff’s first issue.

Plaintiff complaints that it is being injured because its trademark has been infringed, and The Sporting Times is negatively portrayed as a publication that venerates and promotes over- the-hill athletes with serious addiction problems—the sort of sensationalist story that it would by all means avoid as it is the antithesis of the clean cut girl or boy next door image it actively promotes.

Plaintiff does use a similar presentation of “The Sporting News” on its website, and apparently used SPORTING NEWS in Old English script in the past:

although the current presentation is quite different:

Plaintiff has to prove that defendant’s use of a similar title in a fictional publication briefly shown in a movie is an infringement, and the rest of us have to remember that even a fictional product can be accused of infringement.

In Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., [16-241-cv] (December 22, 2016), the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for My Other Bag that its parody bag did not infringe or dilute Louis Vuitton’s trademark and trade dress rights or infringe its copyrights.

Confused? The Second Circuit Wasn’t.

On the issue of infringement the Second Circuit said that whether it reviewed the district court’s findings as to each Polaroid factor deferentially or de novo (avoiding deciding which was corrrect),  “we reach the same conclusion.”  Obvious differences in MOB’s mimicking of LV’s mark, the lack of market proximity between the products at issue, and minimal, and unconvincing evidence of consumer confusion compelled a judgment in favor of MOB.

On the issue  on dilution, the Second Circuit observed a parody must convey two simultaneous—and contradictory—messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody.  The Second Circuit found that this is precisely what MOB did: “At the same time that they mimic LV’s designs and handbags in a way that is recognizable, they do so as a drawing on a product that is such a conscious departure from LV’s image of luxury—in combination with the slogan “My other bag”—as to convey that MOB’s tote bags are not LV handbags.”

Finally, on the issue of copyright infringement, the Second Circuit found that MOB’s parodic use of LV’s designs produces a “new expression [and] message” that constitutes a non-infringing transformative use.