IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Likelihood of confusion
Subscribe to Likelihood of confusion's Posts

Trademark Trial & Appeal Board Gets a DuPont 101 Lesson

by | Feb 22, 2024 |

Addressing errors in the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s likelihood of confusion analysis in a cancellation action, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the Board erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the first DuPont factor (similarity of the marks) and failing to consider the relevant evidence for the third (similarity of established trade channels). Naterra International, Inc. v. Samah Bensalem, Case No. 22-1872 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2024) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

In 2020, Naterra International filed a petition to cancel Samah Bensalem’s registration for BABIES’ MAGIC TEA for use in connection with “medicated tea for babies that treats colic and gas and helps babies sleep better” based on a likelihood of confusion with Naterra’s multiple registrations for BABY MAGIC for use in connection with infant toiletry products such as lotion and baby shampoo. The Board denied Naterra’s petition, finding that Naterra failed to prove a likelihood of confusion. The Board found that while the first DuPont likelihood of confusion factor (similarity of the marks) weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion, factors two (similarity of the goods) and three (similarity of established trade channels) did not, and Naterra’s BABY MAGIC mark “fell somewhere in the middle” for factor five (fame of the prior mark). The Board found that factors four (conditions of purchasing), six (number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods), eight (length of time and conditions of concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion), 10 (market interface between applicant and owner of a prior mark) and 12 (extent of potential confusion) were neutral. Naterra appealed.

Naterra argued “that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that the similarity and nature of the goods (DuPont factor two) and trade channels (DuPont factor three) disfavor a likelihood of confusion,” and that the Board did not properly weigh the first (similarity of the marks) and fifth (fame of the prior mark) DuPont factors.

DuPont Factor Two – Relatedness of the Goods

The Board rejected Naterra’s expert testimony that other so-called “umbrella” baby brands offered both infant skincare products and ingestible products, calling it “unsupported by underlying evidence.” The Federal Circuit disagreed, stating that “testimony that third-party companies sell both types of goods is pertinent to the relatedness of the goods.” Nonetheless, because the Court could not determine whether the Board rejected the expert testimony for other reasons, it remanded the case for further consideration and explanation of its analysis on this point.

DuPont Factor Three – Similarity of Trade Channels

The Board found that the third factor weighed against a likelihood of confusion, stating that it lacked the “persuasive evidence” necessary to “conclude that the trade channels are the same.” The Federal Circuit found that the Board erred by not addressing relevant evidence, namely Bensalem’s admission that the parties’ goods were sold in similar trade channels. The Court also noted that the Board “did not identify in its decision any evidence showing a lack of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Bling It On: Laches Prevents Profit Disgorgement in Diamond-Studded Trademark Battle

by | Feb 8, 2024 |

In a dispute involving allegedly counterfeit luxury watches, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of trademark infringement and its finding that a laches defense prevented disgorgement of profits. Rolex Watch USA, Incorporated v. BeckerTime, L.L.C., Case No. 22-10866 (5th Cir. Jan. 26, 2024) (Douglas, King, Willett, JJ.)

Rolex is a luxury watch seller with legally protectable interests in numerous trademarks. BeckerTime modifies Rolex-branded watches by adding diamonds, aftermarket bezels, and bands not authorized by Rolex and then sells them as “Genuine Rolex” watches. Rolex filed a lawsuit against BeckerTime, alleging trademark infringement and seeking an injunction and disgorgement of profits. After a bench trial, the district court concluded that BeckerTime infringed Rolex’s trademark but refused to order disgorgement of profits based on BeckerTime’s laches defense. This appeal followed.

On the issue of infringement, BeckerTime argued that the district court erroneously applied the traditional likelihood of confusion analysis without considering the Supreme Court’s decision in Champion Spark Plug v. Sanders (1947). In Champion, the Supreme Court held that a defendant in a trademark infringement case was not obligated to remove trademarks from repaired or reconditioned products. This ruling was grounded in the distinction that these products were distinctly marketed as “repaired or reconditioned” as opposed to brand new items. The Supreme Court clarified that a misnomer exception would only be applicable if the extent or nature of the repair or reconditioning was so profound that using the original name would be misleading, even if terms such as “used” or “repaired” were added to describe the item.

In drawing a comparison to Champion, the Fifth Circuit differentiated BeckerTime’s actions from mere repairs or reconditioning. Unlike the defendant in Champion, BeckerTime went beyond restoration, actively modifying Rolex watches by incorporating diamonds, aftermarket bezels and bracelets or straps. Consequently, the watches BeckerTime sold were materially distinct from those offered by Rolex. The Court reasoned that BeckerTime’s alterations amounted to customization rather than mere restoration, as was the case in Champion. Applying the misnomer exception from Champion, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, asserting that BeckerTime’s customized watches created a likelihood of confusion among consumers and thereby infringed upon Rolex’s trademark.

On the issue of disgorgement of profits, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of laches to deny an award of disgorgement. Rolex argued that BeckerTime’s deliberate counterfeiting precluded laches, while BeckerTime responded that Rolex had failed to show the required unclean hands or undue prejudice to justify disgorgement. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that Rolex had failed to establish unclean hands by BeckerTime, as the evidence did not show intentional infringement. The Court also agreed that the delay in filing the lawsuit caused undue prejudice to BeckerTime by enabling it to build a successful business.

While Rolex sought a complete ban on BeckerTime’s use of non-genuine bezels and dials on its modified Rolex watches, the Fifth Circuit only partially agreed. Recognizing the potential for consumer confusion, the Court ordered [...]

Continue Reading



read more

SHAZAM! CAPTAIN CANNABIS Registration Defeated by Prior Analogous Trademark Use

by | Jan 18, 2024 |

Addressing the issue of analogous trademark use, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board designated precedential a September 6, 2022, decision in which the Board cancelled a registration for CAPTAIN CANNABIS based on the petitioner’s evidence of prior use that was “analogous to trademark use.” Laverne John Andrusiek v. Cosmic Crusaders LLC and Lewis J. Davidson, Cancellation No. 92064830 (TTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (Wolfson, Lynch, Larkin, ATJs).

Laverne John Andrusiek claimed to have first created a comic book featuring the title character, Captain Cannabis, during the 1970s. Although Laverne’s sales of comic books under the CAPTAIN CANNABIS mark did not begin until 2017, he promoted his Captain Cannabis character much earlier. For example, Laverne stated that he attended a trade show in New Orleans in 1999 where he distributed flyers describing an adult animated series “in development” featuring the character Captain Cannabis. That same year, Laverne registered the captaincannabis.com domain name, where he alleges he operated a website promoting and selling Captain Cannabis products. In 2006, Laverne claims to have printed 5,000 copies of a comic book that included a Captain Cannabis character and to have first sold those comic books via an online retailer, where sales continued through 2017.

Cosmic Crusaders registered CAPTAIN CANNABIS for “comic books” in Class 16. The subject application was filed on April 2, 2014, and issued on July 28, 2015. Laverne petitioned to cancel this registration in 2016 under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, claiming that use of this mark was likely to cause confusion with his prior common-law use of the identical mark in connection with identical goods. Cosmic Crusaders did not contest that contemporaneous use of both marks would be likely to cause confusion, and there was no dispute that the marks were not distinctive. Therefore, the only issue for the Board to determine was priority.

To establish priority, Laverne had to show (by a preponderance of the evidence) that he owns a trademark previously used in the United States that has not been abandoned. Because priority was based on common-law use in this case, Laverne was also required to establish prior actual trademark use or prior use analogous to trademark use, “such as use in advertising brochures, trade publications, catalogues, newspaper advertisements and Internet websites that created a public awareness of the designation as a trademark identifying Petitioner as the source of the relevant goods.”

Analogous use does not require “survey evidence or other direct evidence of the consuming public’s identification of the CAPTAIN CANNABIS mark with [Andrusiek] as the source of comic books or related goods such as DVDs and animated videos.” Rather, Laverne had to show that he had used the CAPTAIN CANNABIS mark in the US in a way that was “sufficient to create an association in the mind of the relevant consumers between the mark and the goods, followed by actual trademark use of the mark within a ‘commercially reasonable time.’”

The Board found that Laverne’s CAPTAIN CANNABIS mark was reasonably well known within the niche [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Just How Similar Must Competing Marks Be to Survive Dismissal?

by | Oct 5, 2023 |

After a de novo review, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s motion to dismiss, finding the competing marks sufficiently similar to avoid dismissal, and the attorneys’ fee award. Bliss Collection, LLC v. Latham Companies, LLC, Case Nos. 21-5723; -5361 (6th Cir. Sept 21, 2023) (Mathis, Bush, JJ.) (Larsen, J., dissenting).

This case between Bliss and Latham was the latest installment in a series of cases between the children’s clothing companies after a Bliss founder left to start Latham as a competitor company. Here, Bliss sued Latham for infringement of three trademarks for Bliss’s stylized lowercase “b” logo, appearing as if stitched out in thread. Bliss sued for federal copyright infringement, federal trademark infringement, federal trade dress infringement, federal false designation of origin and misappropriation of source, federal unfair competition, trademark under Kentucky law and unfair competition under Kentucky law.

The competing marks are depicted below:

Latham moved to dismiss, and the district court dismissed the federal copyright and trade dress claims. The district court did not initially dismiss the remaining claims, but later did so after a motion for reconsideration. The district court determined that Latham was not entitled to attorneys’ fees because the case was not exceptional, and Bliss had brought the suit in good faith. Bliss appealed the federal trademark infringement, federal trade dress infringement and trademark infringement under Kentucky common law only.

The Sixth Circuit focused its analysis on whether the amended complaint properly alleged that Latham’s logo was a use of Bliss’s trademark. The Court noted that dismissal was not warranted for anything but the most extreme cases, concluded that this was not such a case and reversed.

The Sixth Circuit found that Latham used the accused mark “in a trademark way” (i.e., to identify goods). Then, weighing the Frisch factors to determine likelihood of confusion between the marks, the Court found that the similarity between the marks and their “impression” favored Bliss despite the fact “that the logos share no words or homophones.” Overall, the Court found that five of the eight factors favored Bliss and that two were neutral. Only the likelihood of purchaser care factor was found to favor Latham. The Court thus found that Bliss had plausibly alleged a likelihood of confusion and that its complaint stated a federal trademark infringement claim. Applying the same logic to the state trademark claims, the Court also reversed the dismissal of those claims.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the trade dress claim, however, because Bliss failed in its affirmative duty to plead facts in support of nonfunctional trade dress.

Turning to the attorneys’ fee award, the Sixth Circuit found that the mere fact that Bliss sued Latham was not sufficient to warrant an “exceptional” case finding in terms of an award for fees. The Court was also unpersuaded that the trade dress claim was worthy of a fee award [...]

Continue Reading



read more

What’s Kühler Than Kühl? No Likelihood of Confusion

by | Sep 28, 2023 |

Addressing unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concluded that no reasonable juror would confuse an alcohol distributer’s use of the word “kühl” with use of a similar mark by a clothing company. Alfwear, Inc. v. Mast-Jägermeister US, Inc., Case No. 21-4029 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2023) (Holmes, Kelly, Carson, JJ.)

Alfwear has used the mark KÜHL on its outdoor apparel line since 1993 and has registered the mark in connection with apparel, wine and beer. Mast-Jägermeister US (MJUS), a German herbal liqueur distributor, began incorporating “kühl” into its advertisements on billboards, commercials and digital advertising in phrases such as “kühl as ice” and “drink it ice kühl.” In response, Alfwear filed suit against MJUS, asserting trademark infringement and unfair competition. The district court granted MJUS’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no likelihood of confusion because all but one factor for assessing likelihood of confusion supported MJUS. Alfwear appealed.

Alfwear argued that the district court erred by not concluding that MJUS’s use of the word “kühl” was likely to cause confusion with Alfwear’s use of the essentially the same word. To determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists, the following factors must be considered:

  • The degree of similarity between the marks
  • The intent of the alleged infringer in adopting its mark
  • Evidence of actual confusion
  • Similarity of products and manner of marketing
  • The degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers
  • The strength or weakness of the marks.

The Tenth Circuit found that the two marks were not similar in sound, meaning or appearance, and that MJUS only used “kühl” in association with other MJUS marks. The Court explained that Alfwear often depicts the KÜHL mark alongside a logo of a shield-type shape containing a stylized, snow-covered mountain peak in the colors brown, black and white against a bright blue sky. In contrast, MJUS uses the word “kühl” in phrases such as “kühl shots” or “kühl as ice,” on top of a black or green background and accompanied by a combination of either the mark JÄGERMEISTER, the Jägermeister logo or images of a Jägermeister bottle.

The Tenth Circuit also found that MJUS did not intend to copy Alfwear’s mark, explaining that MJUS was not aware of Alfwear’s trademark when designing the new advertising campaign, and noting that when MJUS became aware of the trademark, MJUS intended to avoid infringement by not placing the mark on its apparel or liquor products. The Court also determined that there was insufficient evidence of actual confusion. Alfwear presented anecdotal evidence from Alfwear executives who had heard about confusion from individuals and survey evidence that demonstrated consumers experienced an approximately 30% chance of confusion. The Court found that the anecdotal evidence was de minimis and found that the survey was not designed properly because the products were not shown to survey participants as they would appear in the marketplace and used leading questions. The Court also found that the two [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Grubhub Relishes Victory Against Trademark Preliminary Injunction

by | Sep 28, 2023 |

Upholding the denial of a preliminary injunction motion in a trademark infringement dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the trademark owner failed to show a likelihood of success on its reverse confusion theory. Grubhub Inc. v. Relish Labs LLC, Case No. 22-1950 (7th Cir. Sept. 12, 2023) (Lee, Jackson-Akiwumi, Wood, JJ.)

Relish Labs and the Kroger Company (Home Chef) create and deliver meal kits with pre-portioned ingredients that customers can cook at home. Home Chef began using its “HC Home Mark,” which is protected by five federal trademark registrations, in 2014. Home Chef has spent more than $450 million on advertising and reached $1 billion in annual sales in October 2021.

Grubhub is an online food ordering and delivery service that provides on-demand order management, dispatching and procurement. In June 2021, Grubhub was acquired by Netherlands-based Just Eat Takeaway (JET), an international food delivery company that typically combines its “JET House Mark” with the marks of its local brands.

Before finalizing its acquisition of Grubhub, JET filed an international trademark application for the JET House Mark. However, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) examiner preliminarily rejected the mark, finding it to be “confusingly similar” to the HC Home Mark. JET did not respond and withdrew the application. After acquiring Grubhub, JET adopted the “Grubhub House Logo,” which combined the Grubhub logo with the JET House Mark. Grubhub introduced the new logo in July 2021 and has spent millions of dollars rebranding.

After receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Home Chef, Grubhub sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that its logo did not infringe Home Chef’s marks. Home Chef countered with a motion for preliminary injunction, which was referred to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge recommended that the court grant Home Chef preliminary injunctive relief, but the district court rejected the recommendation and denied Home Chef’s motion, finding that it had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Home Chef appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit began by addressing which Grubhub mark was at issue: the JET House Mark alone or the Grubhub House Logo (which incorporated the logo portion of the JET House Mark). The Court noted that Grubhub had not used the JET House Mark without the Grubhub brand name in the United States and thus agreed with the district court that the accused mark was the Grubhub House Logo:

Turning next to Home Chef’s reverse confusion theory, the Seventh Circuit addressed the relevant four factors from its [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Disgorgement of Profits Appropriate Remedy for Breach of Contract, Trademark Infringement

by | Aug 24, 2023 |

In a trademark infringement and breach of contract case involving real estate companies with a shared name, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the trademark owner, including almost $43 million in profit disgorgement. Dewberry Engineers v. Dewberry Group, Case Nos. 22-1622; -1845 (4th Cir. Aug. 9, 2023) (Gregory, Thacker, JJ.) (Quattlebaum, J., dissenting).

Dewberry Engineers and Dewberry Group (formerly Dewberry Capital) operate in the same states, and both provide commercial real estate services. Dewberry Engineers started in the mid-1950s as a civil engineering and surveying firm in northern Virginia. Over time, its business expanded to include real estate development services such as architecture and site development. Dewberry Group similarly provides real estate development services through its affiliates, including the Dewberry Hotel in Charleston, South Carolina.

In 2006, Dewberry Group sent Dewberry Engineers a cease-and-desist letter, asserting that Dewberry Group had “senior common law rights” to use “Dewberry” in real estate. In response, Dewberry Engineers sued Dewberry Group for infringing its federally registered DEWBERRY trademark. That litigation ended in 2007 when the parties entered a confidential settlement agreement (CSA). Among other things, the CSA stated that Dewberry Group:

  • Would not challenge Dewberry Engineers’ trademark registrations
  • Could use its “Dewberry Capital” name except in enumerated geographical areas where it instead must use “DCC”
  • Would use no logo other than its “column” logo.

In 2017, Dewberry Group rebranded and attempted to register DEWBERRY GROUP and other marks, which the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) repeatedly rejected.

In 2020, Dewberry Engineers filed suit claiming breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and Virginia common law. The district court granted summary judgment to Dewberry Engineers on the contract claim, finding that Dewberry Group had violated the unambiguous CSA by changing its logo, among other offenses. The district court also granted summary judgment to Dewberry Engineers on its trademark infringement claim, finding that Dewberry Engineers’ mark was not only valid, it was incontestable since it had been in continuous use for more than five years. The district court also found that the likelihood-of-confusion factors favored infringement. The district court entered a permanent injunction against Dewberry Group’s use of “Dewberry” and granted Dewberry Engineers its attorneys’ fees and profit disgorgement. Because the court believed the tax information Dewberry Group provided did not show the true “economic reality” of the close relationship between Dewberry Group and its affiliates, the disgorgement calculation also included some of Dewberry Group’s affiliated companies’ profits. Dewberry Group appealed, challenging the summary judgment grant, the permanent injunction and the monetary awards.

The Fourth Circuit began by noting that there was “uncontroverted evidence” that Dewberry Group used the DEWBERRY trademark, used a logo other than its column logo and failed to use “DCC” in restricted areas, all in breach of the undisputedly valid CSA. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s finding that Dewberry Group breached the CSA.

The Fourth Circuit next addressed the trademark infringement claim. The Court rejected [...]

Continue Reading



read more

If at First You DuPont Succeed, Try a Different Factor

by | Jul 13, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that the Board incorrectly analyzed several DuPont factors, improperly disregarded the DuPont factor regarding third-party registration on similar goods, permitted the opposer to succeed without a showing of identical marks for identical goods used in the marketplace and predicated its comparative analysis on the incorrect mark. Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd., Case No. 22-1578 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2023) (Mayer, Reyna, Dyk, JJ.)

Spireon filed a trademark application for the mark FL FLEX for use in connection with “[e]lectronic devices for tracking the locations of mobile assets in the nature of trailers, cargo containers, and transportation equipment using global positioning systems and cellular communication networks.” After the Examining Attorney approved the application, Flex opposed registration on grounds of priority and likelihood of confusion with Flex’s previously registered marks: FLEX, FLEX (stylized) and FLEX PULSE.

The Board sustained Flex’s opposition based on its analysis of the DuPont factors for evaluating likelihood of confusion. There are a total of 13 factors that together form the underlying factual findings upon which the legal conclusion of likelihood of confusion is made. Not all factors are relevant in every case.

In its consideration of the first DuPont factor (the similarity of the marks), the Board addressed the strength of Flex’s marks, including the marks’ conceptual and commercial strength. The Board weighed five marks—FLEX (in three relevant commercial contexts), LOAD FLEX VALUE FLEX—and concluded that the third-party evidence did not show that Flex’s marks were either conceptually weak or inherently distinctive. The Board then considered the similarity of the marks, analyzing Spireon’s FL FLEX against FLEX, FLEX (stylized) and FLEX PLUS (rather than the actual mark FLEX PULSE). The Board found the marks highly similar and concluded that the first DuPont factor supported a finding of likelihood of confusion. The Board also addressed three other DuPont factors that it considered relevant, but no others. Spireon appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed. The Court found that the Board erred in not considering the sixth DuPont factor, “[t]he number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.” This factor requires an evaluation of conceptual strength and commercial strength. Conceptual strength focuses on the degree to which a mark is descriptive in that it “directly and immediately convey[s] some knowledge of the characteristics of products.” Commercial strength focuses on the “marketplace recognition value of the mark.”

The Federal Circuit explained the relevance of third-party registrations and their bearing on a mark’s conceptual strength, noting that the Board erred in assigning a low probative value to 15 composite marks of record. The Court explained that composite third-party marks are relevant to resolving the question of whether the “shared segment—in this case, ‘flex’—has a commonly understood” meaning in the pertinent field and to the crowded nature of the field in which the flex root is used. As the Court explained, proof of use or non-use is material because the sixth DuPont factor only considers [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Lanham Act Liability May Apply to Copyrighted Material

by | Jun 8, 2023 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that liability under the Copyright Act and liability under the Lanham Act are not mutually exclusive and that liability under the Copyright Act does not negate trade dress damages under the Lanham Act. Jason Scott Collection, Inc. v. Trendily Furniture, LLC, Case No. 21-16978 (9th Cir. May 30, 2023) (Wardlaw, Bumatay, Schreier (sitting by designation), JJ.)

Jason Scott Collection (JSC) and Trendily Furniture are high-end furniture manufacturers that sell their products in the Texas market. In 2016, Trendily intentionally copied three unique furniture designs by JSC and sold them to Texas retailers. Both collections featured heavy carved wood pieces with detailed embellishments and metal elements. The record showed that Trendily’s collection had been based on photographs of the preexisting JSC collection. The Trendily pieces were so similar that even JSC had initially mistaken the furniture as its own when confronted by a retailer. After JSC filed suit, the district court granted summary judgment to JSC on its copyright claim. Following a bench trial, the district court held Trendily liable on the trade dress claim. On that claim, the district court awarded almost $133,000 in prospective lost annual profits over a period of three years, which amounted to about six times the almost $20,000 in retrospective gross profits awarded on JSC’s copyright claim. Trendily appealed.

To obtain a judgment for trade dress infringement, a plaintiff must prove that the claimed trade dress is nonfunctional, the claimed trade dress serves a source-identifying role because it is either inherently distinctive or has acquired a secondary meaning and the defendant’s product creates a likelihood of confusion. Trendily argued that JSC had not adequately established a secondary meaning (for trade dress the parties stipulated was not inherently distinctive) or likelihood of confusion. The Ninth Circuit, however, found that the district court found adequate evidence of secondary meaning through copying and through confusion by retailers and consumers in the high-end furniture market. The Ninth Circuit also found that the district court had correctly found likelihood of confusion, putting special emphasis on Trendily’s intentional and precise copying of the JSC pieces leading to retailer confusion.

Turning to the damages award, Trendily argued that because copying is a commercially acceptable and necessary act in terms of competition, Trendily should only be held liable under the Copyright Act, rather than for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that liability under the Copyright Act and liability under the Lanham Act are not mutually exclusive and that liability under the Copyright Act did not negate the judgment against Trendily for trade dress damages under the Lanham Act. The Court then affirmed the trade dress damages award, finding that the prospective damages incurred when one of JSC’s business relationships fell apart because of Trendily’s copied furniture were reasonably foreseeable and had been “satisfactorily demonstrated.” The Court emphasized that the law only required “crude measures of damages in cases of intentional infringement.”

Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed [...]

Continue Reading



read more

All’s Well That Edwell: Two Markets Can Be Substantially Different if Defined Narrowly Enough

by | Jun 8, 2023 |

Despite evidence of actual confusion and seemingly similar services, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a district court’s noninfringement finding concerning two nearly identical education-related marks because the parties targeted different goods and marketing channels. M Welles & Assocs., Inc. v. Edwell, Inc., Case No. 22-1248 (10th Cir. May 31, 2023) (Ebel, Bacharach, JJ.) (Tymkovich, J., dissenting). In his dissent, Judge Tymkovich criticized the lower court for characterizing the scope of the parties’ services too narrowly and observed that “[a]ny court can find some differences between businesses and markets at a particular level of generality.”

M Welles & Associates provides classes, seminars and certification workshops in the project management space under the brand name EDWEL (derived from “education done well”). The classes are designed for professionals in a variety of industries, including information technology, healthcare, education and the military. Welles primarily advertises its services via social media, Google and email, and further owns a variety of domain names incorporating both EDWEL and EDWELL. The defendant, Edwell, is a nonprofit organization that provides mental health coaching services to schoolteachers using the domain name Edwell.org and the brand name EDWELL (derived from “to be an educator and to be well”). Edwell operates by partnering with schools to provide its services and currently has partnerships with 10 K-12 public schools. Edwell does not target institutions of higher learning and does not offer services to corporations.

Welles first learned of Edwell’s services when it received a call from a potential customer asking about classes at Denver North High School—classes that were in fact offered by Edwell, not Welles. Welles sent a cease-and-desist notice to Edwell, which rebranded to “Educator Wellness Project” for a short time before reverting back to EDWELL. Welles then sued Edwell for trademark infringement, and the district court found that there was no likelihood of confusion. Welles appealed.

Welles raised three arguments on appeal:

  1. The magistrate judge used the wrong legal standard in assessing likelihood of confusion.
  2. The Tenth Circuit should adopt a presumption of confusion.
  3. The magistrate judge clearly erred in the analysis of Edwell’s intent, the similarity of the parties’ services and marketing, the degree of purchaser care and actual confusion.

Welles also moved to supplement the appellate record with new evidence of actual confusion that occurred after the trial.

Supplementation

The Tenth Circuit first addressed Welles’s motion, finding that there was no legitimate basis for supplementing the record. Fed. R. of Civ. P. 10(e) permits a court to modify the appellate record “only to the extent necessary to ‘truly disclose what occurred in the district court.’” Because the new evidence of actual confusion was not before the district court, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Rule 10(e) would not permit it to be added to the record. The Court further reasoned that the rare exception to Rule 10, which permits the court to supplement the record to correct misrepresentations, demonstrate mootness, or raise an issue for the first time on appeal, did not [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES