IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Lanham Act
Subscribe to Lanham Act's Posts

Damages on Default Judgment Not Barred by Absence of Precise Amount in Complaint

by | May 8, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision, allowing collection of actual damages in a default judgment where the complaint only sought damages “in an amount to be determined at trial.” AirDoctor, LLC v. Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co., Ltd., Case No. 24-215 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2025) (Friedland, J.) (Berzon, Kennelly JJ., concurring) (per curiam).

AirDoctor produces and sells air purification products, including branded filters designed specifically for its machines. In 2022, AirDoctor discovered that Xiamen Qichuang Trade had sold tens of thousands of unauthorized replacement filters that were marketed as compatible with AirDoctor products. These filters were allegedly labeled with AirDoctor’s registered trademarks, including AIRDOCTOR and ULTRAHEPA, without permission. AirDoctor asserted that these actions constituted trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and related state laws.

AirDoctor filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages “in an amount to be determined at trial.” Xiamen did not respond or appear in the litigation, and the court entered a default judgment against it. AirDoctor subsequently moved for approximately $2.5 million in actual damages, calculated based on the number of infringing units sold, along with $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The district court entered a default judgment in Air Doctor’s favor but declined to award damages or attorneys’ fees. The court reasoned that Fed. R. Civ. Pro 54(c) barred monetary relief in default judgments unless the complaint demanded a specific sum. Since AirDoctor’s complaint did not include a precise dollar amount, the court concluded that granting the requested monetary relief would exceed what was demanded in the pleadings and thus violate Rule 54(c). AirDoctor appealed.

The issue before the Ninth Circuit was whether the district court erred in interpreting Rule 54(c) to prohibit an award of actual damages in a default judgment where the complaint requested “damages in an amount to be determined at trial” but did not specify a fixed damages amount. Xiamen did not appear on appeal either.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that Rule 54(c) does not require a complaint to state a specific sum of damages for a court to award actual damages after a default judgment. The Court emphasized that the rule’s purpose is to prevent awards that are fundamentally different in kind or amount from those for which the defendant had been put on notice by the complaint, not to deny recovery when the type of relief was clearly identified, even if the amount was not. The Court noted that AirDoctor had clearly requested actual damages in its complaint and had indicated that the precise amount would be determined later, which was sufficient to give Xiamen fair notice of the relief sought. Relying on its 1974 decision in Henry v. Sneiders, the Court reaffirmed that actual damages may be awarded in default cases even if the complaint does not state a dollar figure, as long as the damages are of the same kind as those demanded.

The Ninth Circuit clarified that Rule [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Bull: Historically Generic Term Can Become Non-Generic

by | Mar 20, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Trademark Trial & Appeal Board rulings, finding that a previously generic term was not generic at the time registration was sought because at that time the mark, as used in connection with the goods for which registration was sought, had achieved secondary meaning. Bullshine Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands, LLC, Case Nos. 23-1682; -1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

In 2015 Bullshine sought to register the trademark BULLSHINE FIREBULL for its line of “[a]lcoholic beverages except beers.” Sazerac, the owner of the FIREBALL marks used for liqueurs and whiskey, opposed registration. Sazerac argued that the registration of BULLSHINE FIREBULL would likely cause consumer confusion due to its similarity to Sazerac’s FIREBALL marks. Bullshine counterclaimed, asserting that the term “fireball” had become generic and was commonly used to describe a type of alcoholic drink, thus invalidating Sazerac’s claim to exclusivity.

The Board found that the FIREBALL mark was not generic either at the time of registration nor at the time of trial, and that BULLSHINE FIREBULL was not likely to cause confusion with Sazerac’s marks. The Board determined that the FIREBALL mark was “commercially strong but conceptually weak,” that the respective marks of Sazerac and Bullshine were dissimilar when considered in their entireties, and that Bullshine did not act in bad faith in choosing its marks. The Board denied Sazerac’s opposition to the BULLSHINE FIREBULL mark as well as Bullshine’s counterclaim that the FIREBALL mark was generic. Both parties appealed.

Bullshine argued that the Board applied the incorrect legal standard in finding FIREBALL not generic and that consequently, the finding of non-genericness (upon consideration of secondary meaning) was erroneous. Bullshine argued that since “fireball” was a generic term prior to Sazerac’s registration (as both parties agreed), that fact should have precluded Sazerac’s registration, and the Board erred in considering evidence of secondary meaning. Bullshine argued that if a term was generic at any time prior to registration, it remains generic, regardless of how it might be understood at the time of registration (i.e., once generic, always generic). Sazerac argued that the time to assess genericness is at the time of registration. The Federal Circuit agreed with Sazerac.

The Federal Circuit explained that the genericness inquiry is ultimately guided by “what consumers would think at the time of registration,” and that this ruling is supported by the statutory scheme of the Lanham Act. The Court explained that the Lanham Act, in addition to preventing registration of generic terms, also provides for cancellations of marks “[a]t any time,” and even marks with incontestable statuses can be challenged based on genericness. Therefore, Congress intended that the analysis of whether a term is generic can change over time, and Bullshine’s argument was inconsistent with the statute. This conclusion follows from the legal premise that impression of consumers is “necessarily contemporaneous with the time of registration.”

Bullshine cited the 1961 CCPA decision in Weiss Noodle in support of its argument that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Trade Dress Requires Separate Articulation and Distinctiveness Requirements

by | Feb 20, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for trade dress infringement and unfair competition, finding that the district court erred in requiring the plaintiffs to articulate distinctiveness of trade dress infringement at the pleading stage. Cardinal Motors, Inc. v. H&H Sports Protection USA Inc., Case No. 23-7586 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2025) (Chin, Sullivan, Kelly, JJ.)

Cardinal is a designer and licensor of motorcycle helmets. At issue was the “Bullitt” helmet, which Cardinal exclusively licenses to Bell Sports and is “one of the most popular helmets made by Bell.” H&H manufactures and sells the “Torc T-1” helmet. Both the Bullitt and Torc T-1 helmets have “flat and bubble versions,” feature “metallic borders around the bottom and front opening of the helmet,” and “share similar technical specifications.”

Cardinal sued H&H in September 2020, alleging unfair competition and trade dress infringement. Cardinal amended its complaint twice but both amended complaints were dismissed for failure “to adequately plead the claimed trade dress with precision or with allegations of its distinctiveness.” In Cardinal’s third amended complaint, it included two alternative trade dresses – a “General Trade Dress” and “Detailed Trade Dress” – which listed features of the Bullitt at different levels of detail.

Despite the amendment, the district court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. Based on the general trade dress, the district court reasoned that Cardinal failed to allege distinctiveness and therefore failed to allege a plausible trade dress claim. The district court extended its reasoning to “summarily conclud[e]” that the detailed trade dress also failed to articulate distinctiveness. Cardinal appealed.

Prior to making any determinations, the Second Circuit clarified that distinctiveness and the articulation requirement are separate inquiries, and that the articulation requirement is evaluated first. A plaintiff meets the articulation “requirement by describing with precision the components – i.e., specific attributes, details, and features – that make up its claimed trade dress.” The Court explained that the articulation requirement assists courts and juries to evaluate infringement claims, ensures the design is not too general to protect, and allows a court to identify what combination of elements would be infringing.

Focusing on distinctiveness, the Second Circuit explained that a trade dress plaintiff must specifically allege that its product design has acquired distinctiveness. Acquired distinctiveness is when the mark has a secondary meaning, where the public primarily associates the mark with the “source of the product rather than the product itself.” Separate from the elements of trademark, the plaintiff must meet the articulation requirement, which entails listing the components that make up the trade dress.

Having clarified the pleading requirements, the Second Circuit found de novo that the district court erred in mixing the articulation requirement with the distinctiveness requirement at the pleading stage. The Second Circuit determined that the district court erred in dismissing Cardinal’s complaint for failure to meet the articulation requirement. The Court found that Cardinal met the articulation requirement because the general trade dress was “sufficiently [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Religious Texts, Copyrights, and Estate Law: A Case of Strange Bedfellows

by | Feb 13, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a case involving a deceased religious leader who owned the copyrights to works reflecting his teachings. The Court found that the copyrighted works were not works for hire under copyright law, that the leader therefore had the right to license his copyrights, and that the subsequent owner of the copyrights (not a statutory heir) also had the right to terminate licenses. Aquarian Foundation, Inc. v. Bruce Kimberley Lowndes, Case No. 22-35704 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2025) (Hawkins, McKeown, de Alba, JJ.)

Aquarian Foundation is a nonprofit religious organization founded by Keith Milton Rhinehart. During his time as the leader of Aquarian, Rhinehart copyrighted his spiritual teachings. An Aquarian member, Bruce Lowndes, claimed that he obtained a license from Rhinehart in 1985. Upon Rinehart’s death in 1999, he left his estate, including interests in copyrights, to Aquarian. In 2014, Aquarian discovered that Lowndes was uploading Rhinehart’s teachings online and sent Lowndes takedown requests pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In 2021, Aquarian sent Lowndes a letter terminating Lowndes’ license and sued Lowndes for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin.

After a bench trial, the district court concluded that Rhinehart’s works were not works for hire under either the 1909 or the 1976 Copyright Act, so Rhinehart had the authority to grant Lowndes an unrestricted license. The district court also found that Aquarian did not have the authority to terminate the license as a nonstatutory heir and should have given Lowndes two years notice. The district court denied attorneys’ fees. Both parties appealed the district court’s ruling on ownership and attorneys’ fees, and Aquarian appealed the ruling on its lack of authority to terminate the license.

The Ninth Circuit, finding no clear error, affirmed the district court’s holding that Rhinehart’s works were not works for hire under either the 1909 or the 1976 Copyright Act. Under the 1909 Act’s “instance and expense” test, the Court found that “the creation and maintenance of the works was Rhinehart’s purview, and not the church’s domain.” Under the 1976 Act, which applies agency law, the Court similarly found that Rhinehart’s creation of the works was outside the scope of his employment as Aquarian’s president and secretary. Therefore, under either act, Rhinehart’s works were not works for hire, making Rhinehart the copyright owner. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that as owner, Rhinehart had authority to grant the license to Lowndes. The Court also found that Lowndes’ license to “use copyrighted materials ‘without restriction’” referenced “a coming World Wide Network,” so Lowndes did not breach the license by posting the works online.

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed that the testamentary transfer of copyrights to Aquarian was permitted by both the 1909 and 1976 Copyright Acts: “Both the 1909 and 1976 Copyright Acts allow for the transfer of a copyright by will. 17 U.S.C. § 42 (repealed) (providing that copyrights ‘may be bequeathed by will’); [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Dog Toy Maker in the Doghouse (Again) for Tarnishing Jack Daniel’s Marks

by | Feb 6, 2025 |

Addressing this case for the third time, the US District Court for the District of Arizona found on remand that Jack Daniel’s was entitled to a permanent injunction after finding that VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy diluted Jack Daniel’s trademark and trade dress, despite VIP not having infringed those marks. VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc., Case No. CV-14-02057-PHX-SMM (D. Ariz. Jan. 21, 2025).

This case began more than 10 years ago when VIP filed a declaratory judgment action that its “Bad Spaniels” Silly Squeaker dog toy did not infringe or dilute Jack Daniel’s trademark rights. Jack Daniel’s counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement and dilution. The district court initially entered a permanent injunction against VIP, finding that VIP’s “Bad Spaniels” toy violated and tarnished Jack Daniel’s trademarks and trade dress. VIP appealed, and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that VIP’s use of “Bad Spaniels” was protected expressive speech under the First Amendment. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to VIP on infringement and dilution. Jack Daniel’s appealed, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the heightened protection afforded by the First Amendment does not apply where the contested mark is used as a trademark. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded for further consideration. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine whether VIP’s use of “Bad Spaniels” tarnished and/or infringed Jack Daniel’s trademarks and trade dress, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

On remand, VIP attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s cause of action for dilution by tarnishment, arguing that “the statute amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by enjoining the use of a mark that ‘harms the reputation’ of a famous mark.” Ultimately, the district court did not consider the merits of the constitutional challenge. The district court stated that although it was not precluded from considering VIP’s constitutional challenge, the issue was not properly before the court because VIP had not amended its pleadings to assert the challenge.

The district court assessed dilution by tarnishment using a three-factor analysis of fame, similarity, and reputational harm. With respect to fame, the parties did not dispute that the JACK DANIEL’S mark was famous. Nonetheless, VIP contended that Jack Daniel’s had not shown tarnishment of a famous mark by a “correlative junior mark.” Specifically, VIP argued that the famous JACK DANIEL’S mark correlated with VIP’s “Bad Spaniels,” and VIP’s use of “Old. No. 2” correlated with Jack Daniel’s mark “Old No. 7.” According to VIP, there could be no tarnishment because only the latter was offensive and Jack Daniel’s had not demonstrated that “Old. No. 7” was a famous mark. The district court disagreed with VIP’s correlative mark argument, stating, “it is VIP’s use of Jack Daniel’s marks – on a poop-themed dog chew toy – that Jack Daniel’s claims tarnish its trademarks, not ‘Bad Spaniels’ itself [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Equity Is Neither a “Good” Nor a “Service” Under Lanham Act

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that, in terms of trademark use in commerce, corporate equity is not a “good” or “service” under the Lanham Act. LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, PC v. LegalForce, Inc., Case No. 23-2855 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2024) (Thomas, Wardlaw, Collins, JJ.) (Collins, J., concurring).

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide is a California corporation that operates legal services websites and owns the US mark LEGALFORCE. LegalForce, Inc., is a Japanese corporation that provides legal software services and owns the Japanese mark LEGALFORCE.

Both parties had discussions with the same group of investors. After those meetings, LegalForce Japan secured $130 million in funding, while LegalForce USA received nothing. Thereafter, LegalForce USA brought several claims against LegalForce Japan, including a trademark infringement claim. To support its case, LegalForce USA cited LegalForce Japan’s expansion plan, a trademark application for the mark LF, website ownership, and the use of LEGALFORCE to sell and advertise equity shares to investors in California.

The district court dismissed claims related to the website for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed claims related to the US expansion plan, trademark application, and alleged software sales in the United States as unripe. The district court dismissed the trademark infringement claims related to the efforts to sell equity shares for failure to state a claim. The court found that advertising and selling equity cannot constitute trademark infringement because it is not connected to the sale of goods or services, and the case did not present justification for extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act. LegalForce USA appealed.

To state a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, plaintiffs must show that:

  • They have a protectible ownership interest in the mark, or for some claims, a registered mark
  • The defendant used the mark “in connection with” goods or services
  • That use is likely to cause confusion. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), § 1125(a).

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that LegalForce Japan had not used LegalForce USA’s mark “in connection with” goods or services, and thus LegalForce USA failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that using LEGALFORCE to advertise and sell equity failed to satisfy the requirement that a defendant used the mark in connection with goods or services. Referring to the U.C.C., the Court explained that corporate equity is “not a good for purposes of the Lanham Act, because it is not a movable or tangible thing.” Equity is also not a service because it is not a performance of labor for the benefit of another. There is no “another” involved because those who buy LegalForce Japan equity are owners and so they are not legally separate “others.”

The Ninth Circuit also agreed with the district court that LegalForce Japan’s services in Japan did not satisfy the “in connection with” goods or services requirement under the Lanham Act. To determine when a statute applies extraterritorially, courts invoke the 2023 Supreme Court
Continue Reading



read more

Interoperability Doesn’t Imply Derivative Work

by | Jan 9, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained that to be a derivative work, a program interoperative with another must actually incorporate aspects of the underlying work. The Court further ruled that licensees of a copy of a computer program are not “owners” of the copy and therefore are not entitled to make copies for the purposes permitted by 17 U.S.C. § 117(a). Oracle International Corp. v. Rimini Street, Inc., Case No. 23-16038 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2024) (Bybee, Bumatay, Bennett, JJ.)

Rimini provides third-party support for Oracle software and is a direct competitor with Oracle in the software support services market. For more than a decade, Oracle and Rimini have been involved in what the Ninth Circuit describes as a “pitched copyright war.” This latest battle relates to changes Rimini made to its business model after a district court determined that Rimini had infringed Oracle’s copyrights. Rimini developed a new process for servicing customers using Oracle software and sought a declaratory judgment that its revised process did not infringe Oracle’s copyrights. Oracle counterclaimed for copyright infringement and Lanham Act violations.

The district court found that Rimini created infringing derivative works because its new process interacted and was usable with Oracle software. The district court found that Rimini violated Oracle’s PeopleSoft and Database licensing agreements and made several statements violating the Lanham Act. The court struck Rimini’s affirmative defense to copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 117(a), granted Oracle summary judgment that Rimini infringed Oracle’s copyrights, and issued a permanent injunction against Rimini. Rimini appealed.

Derivative Works

The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s analysis of Rimini’s new process, noting that the district court focused on an “interoperability test,” which does not exist under the text of the Copyright Act or in precedent. In effect, the district court’s test would find that if a product interoperates with a preexisting copyrighted work, then it must be derivative. The Ninth Circuit explained that while the Copyright Act uses broad language to describe derivative works, the derivative work must actually incorporate the underlying work. For Rimini’s new process to be a derivative work, it must incorporate Oracle’s copyrighted work, either literally or nonliterally. The Court found that just because Rimini’s new process interacted with Oracle’s software, that was insufficient to find it was a derivative work.

Affirmative Defense: Section 117(a)

The Copyright Act permits an owner of a copy of a computer program to make a copy or adaptation of that program for certain purposes under 17 U.S.C. § 117(a). The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling, striking Rimini’s affirmative defense under Section 117(a), because the district court erred in determining whether Oracle’s customers “owned” a copy of Oracle’s software, PeopleSoft. The Court explained that to determine whether a party is an “owner of a copy” of a computer program, the courts look to whether the party has “sufficient incidents of ownership” over the “copy” of the software, in view of the totality of the parties’ agreement. Factors that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Chill Out: Request for Profit Disgorgement Isn’t Entitled to Jury Trial

by | Dec 5, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial regarding its trade dress infringement claim and that the plaintiff failed to prove that its trade dress had acquired the required secondary meaning. National Presto Industries Inc. v. U.S. Merchants Financial Group Inc., Case No. 23-1493 (8th Cir. Nov. 12, 2024) (Loken, Erickson, Grasz, JJ.)

National Presto manufactures household appliances, including personal electric heaters sold under the brand name “HeatDish” since 1989. These heaters had “a parabolic design that looked like a satellite dish.” National Presto supplied HeatDish heaters to Costco for many years. However, amid slumping sales, Costco began exploring alternative options. In 2017, Costco requested a “parabolic electric heater that was UL approved, had high heat, and looked industrial and robust” from another supplier, U.S. Merchants Financial Group. U.S. Merchants began development of a heater named “The Heat Machine.” Costco requested modifications to the initial design, including “changes focused on a comparison with Presto’s HeatDish.” Costco began selling The Heat Machine in 2018.

In December 2018, National Presto filed suit against U.S. Merchants asserting trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act. National Presto requested both injunctive relief and that U.S. Merchants “be required, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, to account to National Presto for any and all profits derived by them, either individually or jointly to be ordered to disgorge, and be ordered to pay all damages sustained by National Presto by reason of Defendant’s actions complained herein.”

National Presto sought a jury trial for its trade dress claim, but the district court ruled that National Presto was seeking equitable relief and thus was not entitled to a jury trial. The district court noted that under the Lanham Act, courts generally “find that a claim for disgorgement of an infringer’s profits is an equitable claim” and therefore the Seventh Amendment does not provide the right to a jury trial for such a claim. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that National Presto failed to prove infringement because its trade dress had not acquired secondary meaning. National Presto appealed.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Regarding the denial of a jury trial, which the Court reviewed de novo, National Presto argued that “disgorgement is considered a legal claim when the infringer’s profits serve as a ‘proxy’ for the plaintiff’s damages.” Although the district court did not reject that legal theory, it found that the facts National Presto presented were not sufficient to support a finding that the profits were in fact serving as a proxy. The Court rejected several of National Presto’s arguments, including that “Presto’s desired remedy was legal rather than equitable because its aim was compensation rather than disgorgement of unjust enrichment.”

Regarding the district court’s secondary meaning finding, which the Eighth Circuit reviewed for clear error, the Court noted that “the chief inquiry is whether in the consumer’s mind the mark has become associated with a particular source.” In rejecting National [...]

Continue Reading



read more

What a Croc! False Claim That Product Feature Is Patented Can Give Rise to Lanham Act Violation

by | Oct 17, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a grant of summary judgment on a false advertising claim, concluding that a cause of action under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act can arise when a party falsely claims to hold a patent on a product feature and advertises that feature in a misleading way. Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., Case No. 2022-2160 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024) (Reyna, Cunningham, JJ.; Albright, District J., sitting by designation).

Crocs, the well-known maker of molded foam footwear, sued several competitor shoe distributors for patent infringement in 2006. The case was stayed pending an action before the International Trade Commission but resumed in 2012 when Croc added competitor U.S.A. Dawgs as a defendant to the district court litigation. The case was stayed twice more, from 2012 to 2016 and 2018 to 2020. In between those stays, in May 2016, Dawgs filed a counterclaim against Crocs and 18 of its current and former officers and directors, alleging false advertising violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The individual defendants were later dismissed from the action.

Dawgs claimed that Crocs deceived consumers and damaged its competitors by falsely describing its molded footwear material, which it calls “Croslite,” as “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive.” Dawgs alleged that it was damaged by Crocs’ false advertisements and commercial misrepresentations because Crocs suggested that its competitors’ footwear material was inferior. Croslite is in fact not patented, as Crocs conceded.

Crocs argued in its motion for summary judgment that Dawgs failed as a matter of law to state a cause of action under Section 43(a) because the alleged advertising statements were directed to a false designation of authorship of the shoe products and not to their nature, characteristics, or qualities, as Section 43(a)(1)(B) requires. The district court agreed. Applying the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and the Federal Circuit’s 2009 decision in Baden Sports, Inc. v. Molten USA, Inc., the district court granted summary judgment to Crocs. It reasoned that falsely claiming to have “patented” something is similar to a false claim of authorship or inventorship, not to the types of false advertising prohibited by the Lanham Act. Dawgs appealed.

Dawgs argued that the district court’s application of Dastar and Baden to the circumstances of its case was inapposite, and the Federal Circuit agreed. In Dastar, the petitioner copied a television series in the public domain, made minor changes, and sold it as a video set, passing it off as its own. The Supreme Court held that a false claim of authorship does not give rise to a cause of action under the Lanham Act. Similarly, in Baden, the Federal Circuit found that a basketball manufacturer’s false suggestion that it was the author of the “innovative” “dual-cushion technology” in its basketballs did not give rise to a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act.

In this case, however, the Federal Circuit reasoned that Croc’s false [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Dolly Pardon: American Girl Can Sue Foreign Counterfeiter for Internet Sales

by | Sep 26, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified its standards for establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants that conduct business over the internet. American Girl, LLC v. Zembrka, DBA www.zembrka.com; www.daibh-idh.com, Case No. 21-1381 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2024) (Cabranes, Parker, Kahn, JJ.)

In 2021, American Girl, the famous doll manufacturer, filed suit against Zembrka in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. American Girl brought multiple claims under the Lanham Act, including claims for trademark counterfeiting and trademark infringement, for advertising and sales of counterfeit American Girl dolls through Zembrka’s websites. Zembrka is located in and operates from the People’s Republic of China. American Girl was granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) that enjoined Zembrka from marketing, manufacturing, or distributing counterfeit American Girl products and from advertising counterfeit or confusingly similar American Girl marks.

Zembrka appealed and moved to dissolve the TRO and dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Zembrka argued that it did not transact or do business in New York as required to establish personal jurisdiction under C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1). American Girl asserted, with supporting evidence, that customers in New York could place orders through Zembrka’s interactive websites by inputting payment, billing, and shipping information, and that customers were sent confirmations of their orders to shipping addresses in New York. American Girl’s counsel purchased and paid for allegedly counterfeit American Girl merchandise through Zembrka’s website and received order confirmation emails. Zembrka conceded at oral argument that the allegedly counterfeit American Girl dolls were available via its website for purchase by people in New York.

The TRO was served on Zembrka. Two weeks later, Zembrka canceled the orders and refunded the payments for the purchases made by American Girl’s counsel. The district court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, reasoning that because American Girl did not provide evidence that the allegedly counterfeit goods had shipped to New York, no business was transacted under § 302(a)(1). American Girl moved for reconsideration, providing evidence of other purchases of allegedly counterfeit merchandise by New York customers. It also produced evidence showing that New York customers purchased more than $41,000 worth of other Zembrka products over the past year via PayPal. The district court denied the motion because American Girl still did not demonstrate that any of the allegedly infringing products were actually delivered to New York, and customer payments were refunded. American Girl appealed.

The primary issue on appeal was whether American Girl sufficiently established that Zembrka transacted business in New York for the purposes of § 302(1)(a). The Second Circuit found that this requirement was easily satisfied, explaining that the district court had incorrectly interpreted the Second Circuit’s 2010 decision in Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills as requiring a shipment to be an essential component of “transacting business.” It was enough that American Girl provided evidence that New York customers submitted orders and payments for allegedly counterfeit merchandise through Zembrka’s websites: “Section 302(a)(1) [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES