Lanham Act Archives

Lanham Act

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

by Karen Gover | Oct 17, 2024 | Trademarks

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

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

by Karen Gover | Sep 26, 2024 | Copyrights, Trademarks

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

Rebel Libertarians Aren’t at Liberty to Violate Lanham Act

by Karen Gover | Sep 5, 2024 | Trademarks

In a case that required the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to articulate the boundary between the Lanham Act and the First Amendment when the trademark in question is the name of a political party, the Court found that the Lanham Act can constitutionally apply to use of the mark and that the defendants were improperly using the mark as a source identifier. Libertarian Nat’l Comm. Inc. v. Saliba, et al., Case No. 23-1856 (6th Cir. Aug. 28, 2024) (Cole, Gibbons, Readler, JJ.)

The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) owns the trademark LIBERTARIAN PARTY. Party bylaws of the LNC provide a licensing regime that authorizes recognized state affiliates, such as the Libertarian Party of Michigan, to use the LNC’s mark as a source identifier.

In 2022, two top officers of the Libertarian Party of Michigan resigned, and the third most senior member, Andrew Chadderdon, became acting chair of the Michigan affiliate. Chadderdon’s promotion sparked a dispute within the affiliate over the rightful leadership of the group. The dissenting members of the affiliate voted to remove him from the executive committee and voted themselves onto the committee. The Libertarian Party Judicial Committee determined that this replacement by the dissenting members violated the bylaws. It reinstated Chadderdon and voided the executive appointments, including those of the dissenting members, that resulted from the vote. However, the dissenting members (the defendants in this case) regarded themselves as the rightful executive board members of the Libertarian Party of Michigan. Despite being told to stop using LNC’s trademarks, the defendants continued to use them to hold themselves out as the official Libertarian Party of Michigan.

The LNC sued the defendants in federal court, bringing various claims of trademark infringement, and moved for a preliminary injunction barring them from continuing to use the LNC’s mark, which the district court granted. The defendants appealed.

The primary question before the Sixth Circuit was whether the defendants’ use of the LNC mark to “solicit party donations, fill out campaign finance paperwork, advertise events, and espouse political platform positions and commentary falls within the scope of the Lanham Act.” The defendants relied on the Sixth Circuit’s 2003 decision in Taubman Co. v. Webfeats to argue that their use of the LNC mark was political speech and therefore fell outside the ambit of the Lanham Act, which regulates commercial speech. Taubman concerned Webfeats’s use of a shopping mall’s trademark in domain names by the creator of a “fan site” and later a “gripe site.” Because Webfeats’s use of the mark was not to designate source but to comment on the trademark holder, it was protected expression.

The Sixth Circuit found Taubman to be inapposite, however. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2023 holding in Jack Daniel’s Properties, the Sixth Circuit pointed out that the defendants used the LNC’s mark “to designate the source of their political services as affiliated with the LNC” and thus implicated the core concern of trademark law: use of a mark as a source identifier.

The Sixth Circuit [...]

Continue Reading

David-Versus-Goliath Trademark Victory Isn’t Necessarily “Exceptional”

by Karen Gover | Jul 25, 2024 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated an award of attorneys’ fees for reanalysis, explaining that the district court’s finding that the case was “exceptional” under the Lanham Act was based on policy considerations rather than the totality of the circumstances. Lontex Corp. v. Nike, Inc., Case Nos. 22-1417; -1418 (3rd Cir. July 10, 2024) (Hardiman, Matey, Phipps, JJ.)

Lontex Corporation is a small Pennsylvania business that manufactures and sells compression apparel to professional athletes and the public. Since 2008 it has held a registered trademark for the mark COOL COMPRESSION, which it used in conjunction with its sale of apparel. In 2015, Nike rebranded an athletic clothing line that included a category of “Cool” products designed to reduce body temperature, as well as various fits, including “Compression.” It also began using the words “Cool” and “Compression” together in the names of Nike clothing products sold online and in Nike catalogues. Nike used “Cool Compression” as a product name on tech sheets, which are internal documents used to explain Nike products to employees and third-party retailers.

The following year, upon discovering Nike’s use of the phrase “Cool Compression,” Lontex sent Nike a cease-and-desist letter. Nike’s lawyers directed the company to stop using the phrase “as soon as possible.” Nike took steps to remove the phrase from its website and catalogs but not its tech sheets. Two years later, Nike reached out to its third-party retailers and asked them to stop using “Compression” in product names.

Lontex sued Nike for trademark infringement of its COOL COMPRESSION mark, for contributory infringement based on its supply of “Cool Compression” products to retailers, and for counterfeiting. The district court dismissed the counterfeiting claim, and a jury trial was held on the infringement actions. The jury returned a verdict for Lontex, finding Nike liable for willful and contributory infringement. The jury awarded Lontex $142,000 in compensatory damages and $365,000 in punitive damages but declined to award Lontex disgorgement of Nike’s profits.

Post-trial, Nike renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law on fair use, trademark infringement, contributory infringement, willfulness and punitive damages. Lontex moved for disgorgement of profits and trebling of the damages awarded by the jury. The district court granted Lontex’s request for treble damages, increased the compensatory award to $426,000, and separately awarded Lontex almost $5 million in attorneys’ fees after finding that the case was “exceptional” under the Lanham Act. Both parties appealed.

As to the willfulness finding, Nike argued that the jury should not have been permitted to infer willfulness solely from its continued use of the mark after it received its cease-and-desist letter. The Third Circuit disagreed, pointing out that not only did Nike adopt the “Cool Compression” phrase without doing a trademark search, it also continued to use the phrase after receiving Lontex’s cease-and-desist letter and being advised by its own legal team to stop using it as soon as possible. The Court concluded that a jury could reasonably infer willful infringement. For similar reasons, [...]

Continue Reading

Smart Choice: Survey Design Didn’t Render Survey Unreliable

by Karen Gover | Jul 18, 2024 | Trademarks

Underscoring its faith in a jury’s competency to use its “common sense and experience” in evaluating evidence, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants in a trademark infringement action following a trial, as well as its order partially denying the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees. BillFloat, Inc. v. Collins Cash, Inc., Case Nos. 23-15405; -15470 (9th Cir. July 1, 2024) (Thomas, McKeown, Christen, JJ.)

BillFloat and Collins Cash both provide financing to small businesses. In 2013, BillFloat began using SMARTBIZ as a trademark and registered the mark in 2014. That same year (2014), Collins Cash began using the mark SMART BUSINESS FUNDING, although it did not file an application to register the mark until 2020. Meanwhile, in 2018, BillFloat and Collins Cash entered into a partnership agreement under which Collins Cash would refer current and prospective customers to BillFloat in exchange for a referral fee. The parties’ agreement stated that “[i]f either Party employs attorneys to enforce any right arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

In 2020, upon learning of Collins Cash’s use of the SMART BUSINESS FUNDING mark, BillFloat brought claims for federal and state trademark infringement, breach of contract, unfair competition and unlawful business practices. The district court granted summary judgment to Collins Cash on the breach of contract claim and proceeded to trial on the trademark infringement claim.

Collins Cash engaged an expert to conduct a likelihood of confusion survey using the so-called “Squirt” methodology, which is used for lesser-known marks. BillFloat filed a motion to exclude the expert and his survey from trial, arguing that various errors made the survey unreliable and therefore inadmissible. The district court denied the motion and admitted the expert’s testimony and his survey. The district court also admitted testimony from BillFloat’s expert that challenged the survey. Both experts were cross-examined on their qualifications and on the merits of the survey.

The jury found that BillFloat had not established trademark infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. Post-trial, BillFloat moved for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, and Collins Cash moved for attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs. The district court denied BillFloat’s motion and awarded Collins Cash attorneys’ fees under the partnership agreement for the breach of contract claim but declined to award Collins Cash attorneys’ fees for the trademark infringement claim or non-taxable costs for either claim. Both parties appealed.

BillFloat argued that the district court abused its discretion in admitting Collins Cash’s expert testimony and survey evidence. It also argued that the district court erred in declining to give BillFloat’s proposed jury instruction not to draw any inferences about the fact that BillFloat did not offer its own survey evidence.

The Ninth Circuit found no abuse of discretion on these issues. The Court pointed to the distinction between the admissibility of survey evidence as opposed to the relative weight a [...]

Continue Reading

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? Supreme Court to Consider Scope of Lanham Act “Defendant’s Profit” Award

by Kathleen Lynch | Jul 11, 2024 | Cert Alert, Trademarks

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider the breadth of a damages award in a long-running trademark dispute between two real estate companies. Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc., Docket No. 23-900 (Supr. Ct. June 24, 2024).

Dewberry Group and Dewberry Engineers both offer commercial real estate services in the same geographic area. The two companies dispute the use of the name “Dewberry” for use in real estate: Dewberry Group has acquired common law rights, and Dewberry Engineers owns registered trademarks. Dewberry Engineers sued Dewberry Group, but the initial litigation ended in settlement in 2007. As part of the settlement, Dewberry Group agreed to various terms, including that it would use a specific logo and an abbreviated name in certain overlapping markets.

Ten years later, Dewberry Group rebranded and attempted to register new marks containing the word “Dewberry” and abandoned the logo and name specified by the settlement agreement. In 2020, Dewberry Engineers again sued Dewberry Group, this time for violating the terms of the confidential settlement agreement and for infringing Dewberry Engineers’ trademarks. The lower court granted Dewberry Engineers summary judgment, a permanent injunction and monetary damages. The damages award included profit disgorgement pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), under which the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Dewberry Group’s affiliates to disgorge almost $43 million in profits. Dewberry Group appealed, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed in a 2 – 1 decision.

Dewberry Group petitioned for certiorari on the issue of damages, arguing that the Fourth Circuit’s decision to allow Dewberry Engineers to collect damages based on Dewberry Group’s affiliates’ profits “silently invites courts to ignore corporate separateness in trademark disputes without regard to veil-piercing principles.” Dewberry Group argued that the Fourth Circuit decision was substantively incorrect and contradictory to Ninth and Eleventh Circuit decisions as well as the Lanham Act. According to Dewberry Group, the $43 million “never passed through [Dewberry Group’s] hands,” and in fact the company “had zero net profits.” Because the Lanham Act allows only for disgorgement of a defendant’s profits – not defendant’s affiliates’ profits or a penalty against the defendant – Dewberry Group contended that the damages award was improper.

The issue presented is: Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

Rum Wars: Lanham Act Doesn’t Preclude Judicial Review of PTO Renewal Decisions

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Jun 27, 2024 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s ruling, holding that the Lanham Act does not foreclose an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) action for judicial review of the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) compliance with statutes and regulations governing trademark registration renewal. Bacardi & Co. Ltd. v. USPTO, Case No. 22-1659 (4th Cir. June 13, 2024) (Rushing, Richardson, Motz, JJ.)

The Arechabala family exported rum to the United States using the registered HAVANA CLUB trademark until the Cuban government expropriated Arechabala’s assets without compensation and let the HAVANA CLUB trademark expire. Empresa Cubana Exportadora de Alimentos y Productos Varios (Cubaexport) then registered HAVANA CLUB as a trademark in the US for itself. Bacardi & Company Limited and Bacardi USA, Inc. (collectively, Bacardi) obtained an interest in the HAVANA CLUB mark from the Arechabala family, filed a US trademark application for HAVANA CLUB and petitioned the PTO to cancel Cubaexport’s registration. Upon the PTO’s denial of Bacardi’s trademark application and cancellation petition, Bacardi filed a civil action challenging these administrative rulings.

Two years later, Cubaexport was required to renew its HAVANA CLUB trademark registration under Section 8 of the Lanham Act. Because of a trade embargo, Cubaexport sought a specific license from the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to pay the renewal fee, but OFAC denied the request. OFAC’s denial resulted in the PTO denying renewal of Cubaexport’s HAVANA CLUB registration. Cubaexport petitioned OFAC and the PTO to reverse their decisions. Ten years later, once OFAC issued a special license to Cubaexport, the PTO permitted Cubaexport to renew its HAVANA CLUB trademark registration.

Bacardi sued the PTO under the APA, claiming that the PTO Director violated Section 9 of the Lanham Act and the PTO’s own regulations by purporting to renew a trademark registration 10 years after it expired. The district court ruled that the Lanham Act precluded judicial review under the APA and thereby dismissed Bacardi’s lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Bacardi appealed.

The Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that “[n]othing in the Lanham Act expressly precludes judicial review of the PTO’s trademark registration renewal decisions.” In fact, Section 21 of the Lanham Act specifically authorizes, rather than forecloses, parties dissatisfied with certain decisions of the Director or the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board to appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or institute a civil action in federal district court. Section 21 of the Lanham Act also does not limit proceedings under sections or statutes such as the APA, and the Lanham Act is silent as to whether a third party may seek judicial review of the PTO’s decision to grant a renewal application.

Having found nothing in the Lanham Act that expressly precludes judicial review of PTO registration renewal decisions or fairly implies congressional intent to do so, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the APA’s mechanism for judicial review remains available.

Sour Grapes: Winery Minority Ownership Insufficient for Statutory Standing at Trademark Board

by Karen Gover | May 30, 2024 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a petition seeking to cancel the registered marks of two wineries, finding the petitioner (a trust owning an interest in a competitor winery) lacked statutory standing under 15 U.S.C. § 1064. Luca McDermott Catena Gift Trust v. Fructuoso-Hobbs SL, Case No. 23-1383 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024) (Lourie, Reyna, Chen, JJ.) (en banc). The Court found that while the cancellation petitioner, Luca McDermott, had Article III standing to seek judicial review of the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s decision, it did not have statutory standing under the Lanham Act to petition for cancellation of the registrations at issue.

Paul Hobbs is a winemaker and partial owner of California-based Paul Hobbs Winery. The Paul Hobbs Winery owns the registration for the PAUL HOBBS mark in International Class 33 for “Wines.” Luca McDermott and two other related family trusts are each limited partners of the winery, collectively owning more than 21% of the business. Paul Hobbs is also affiliated with two other wineries: Fructuoso-Hobbs, a Spanish winery and owner of the registered mark ALVAREDOS-HOBBS, and New York winery Hillick & Hobbs Estate, owner of the registered mark HILLICK AND HOBBS. Both marks are registered in International Class 33 for “Alcoholic beverages except beers; wines.”

Luca McDermott and the other two family trusts petitioned to cancel both of the registered marks on the grounds of likelihood of confusion, alleging that the use of the ALVAREDOS-HOBBS and HILLICK AND HOBBS marks in connection with wine was likely to cause confusion with the Paul Hobbs Winery’s use of the PAUL HOBBS mark for wine. The trusts also alleged that Fructuoso-Hobbs committed fraud because it caused its lawyer, the same lawyer of record who managed the registration of the Paul Hobbs Winery’s PAUL HOBBS mark, to declare that the marks would not be likely to cause confusion with another mark.

Fructuoso-Hobbs moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the family trusts were not entitled by statute to bring the cancellation action because they were not the owners of the PAUL HOBBS mark. Fructuoso-Hobbs also argued that the trusts could not show they had the necessary “proprietary interest” to bring the likelihood of confusion claim. The Board granted the motion to dismiss. Luca McDermott, one of the three trusts in the original action, appealed.

Before it could review de novo the Board’s decision regarding the trust’s lack of standing under the Lanham Act, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the trust had Article III standing to seek judicial review of the Board’s decision. The Court had little trouble concluding that the alleged injury (i.e., the diminished value of the trust’s investment in the winery) constituted an individual injury-in-fact, even for a minority partner. Furthermore, the Court found that the causation requirement was satisfied because the constitutional standard did not require proximate causation but only that the injury be “fairly traceable” to the allegedly unlawful registration of the challenged marks. Finally, the Federal Circuit found it [...]

Continue Reading

Foreign Sales to Foreign Customers Are Not Actionable Under the Lanham Act

by Sarah Bro | May 9, 2024 | Trademarks

Issuing a revised opinion following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that none of the defendant’s purely foreign sales to foreign customers can premise liability for the plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims and that any permanent injunction issued against the defendant cannot extend beyond qualifying domestic conduct. Hetronic International, Inc. v. Hetronic Germany GmbH; Hydronic-Steuersysteme GmbH; ABI Holding GmbH; Abitron Germany GmbH; Abitron Austria GmbH; Albert Fuchs, Case Nos. 20-6057; -6100 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 2024) (Murphy, McHugh, Phillips, JJ.)

Hetronic is a US company that manufactures radio remote controls for heavy-duty construction equipment. Hetronic sued its foreign distributors and licensees (collectively, Abitron) in the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma for trademark infringement when, following termination of the Hetronic distribution and license agreements, Abitron reverse-engineered Hetronic’s products and began manufacturing and selling their own copycat products bearing Hetronic’s trade dress (a “distinctive black-and-yellow color scheme”). Abitron’s sales of the copycat products took place primarily in Europe. In the first rounds of this dispute, the district court rejected Abitron’s argument that Hetronic sought an impermissible extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act, and a jury awarded Hetronic $96 million in damages related to Abitron’s global use of Hetronic’s marks. Abitron was also permanently enjoined from using the marks anywhere in the world. Abitron appealed to the Tenth Circuit.

As a matter of first impression, the Tenth Circuit fashioned its own test to determine the extraterritoriality of the Lanham Act, upholding the district court’s ruling but narrowing the injunction to only the countries where Hetronic marketed or sold its products. Abitron appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split over the Lanham Act’s extraterritorial reach. Specifically, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Lanham Act applies to “purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. customers” and considered its long-standing presumption against extraterritoriality, with the first step of its analysis consisting of asking whether Congress has “affirmatively and unmistakably instructed” that a particular statute “should apply to foreign conduct.” As the second step, the Supreme Court determined whether a claim seeks a permissible domestic or impermissible foreign application of a statute.

The Supreme Court held that Sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and that the infringing conduct – being “use in commerce” of a trademark – determines the dividing line between foreign and domestic application of the Lanham Act. The Supreme Court vacated the Tenth Circuit’s findings and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the Tenth Circuit to reevaluate which of Abitron’s allegedly infringing activities count as use in commerce under the Supreme Court’s exterritoriality frameworks and to determine on which side of the dividing line Abitron’s conduct falls.

With the Supreme Court having already determined step one, on remand, the Tenth Circuit started with step two of the extraterritoriality analysis and found [...]

Continue Reading

A Lesson in Laches: You Waited Too Long to Start Your Kar

by Sarah Bro | May 2, 2024 | Trademarks

After the district court, on remand, held that laches did not bar relief, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit again determined that the district court abused its discretion by not properly applying the presumption in favor of laches and issued an order to vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss a charity’s trademark infringement claims with prejudice. Kars 4 Kids Inc. v. America Can!, Case Nos. 23-1273; -1281 (3rd Cir. Apr. 17, 2024) (Bibas, Porter, Fisher, JJ.)

Kars 4 Kids and America Can! Cars for Kids are charities that sell donated vehicles to fund children’s education programs and have been engaged in a trademark dispute since 2003. Both parties have alleged federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution over their respective KARS 4 KIDS and CARS FOR KIDS trademarks. The parties were last before the Third Circuit in 2021, when the Court held that America Can was first to use its CARS FOR KIDS trademark in Texas, and Kars 4 Kids waived any challenge to the validity of America Can’s marks. In that 2021 decision, the Third Circuit also vacated the district court judgment in part and remanded the case for the district court to reexamine its laches and disgorgement conclusions, which had been decided in favor of America Can.

The Lanham Act does not contain a statute of limitations. Instead, it subjects all claims to the principles of equity. To determine whether laches bars a claim, a court considers two elements: whether the plaintiff inexcusably delayed in bringing suit, and whether the defendant was prejudiced as a result of the delay. With respect to the burden of proof for the laches claim at issue, America Can and Kars 4 Kids agreed that their Lanham Act claims were properly analogous to New Jersey’s six-year fraud statute. Therefore, because America Can first discovered the Kars 4 Kids trademark in Texas in 2003 and did not bring counterclaims until 2015, America Can was subject to a presumption that its claims were barred by laches unless it was able to prove both that its delay in filing suit was excusable and that it did not prejudice Kars 4 Kids.

On the issue of delay, the Third Circuit found that the district court erred because it did not find that America Can met its burden of establishing that its delay in bringing suit was excusable and that a reasonable person in its shoes would have waited to file suit. Instead, the district court improperly placed the burden on Kars 4 Kids to establish whether its advertisements in Texas were viewed by a sufficient number of Texans so as to put America Can on notice. As the Third Circuit explained, this was error. The district court should have held America Can to the burden of persuasion to show that it was not sufficiently aware of Kars 4 Kids’s use of its mark in Texas and to show what it did to identify and stop any potentially [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS