IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Unfair Competition
Subscribe to Unfair Competition's Posts

No Supremacy Clause Preemption Where State Statute Doesn’t Conflict With Federal

by | May 8, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explained that ordinarily, when state law contradicts with federal law, the state law may be preempted by the federal law under the US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. However, under Supreme Court precedent, state unfair-competition laws that accurately mirror the relevant provisions of federal law are not subject to preemption. Zyla Life Sciences, LLC v. Wells Pharma of Houston, LLC, Case No. 23-20533 (5th Cir. April 10, 2025) (Oldham, Ho, Duncan, JJ.)

Under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., no one may sell any new drug without prior approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Because compounded drugs are not new but are merely remixed versions of existing drugs, registered compounding facilities are allowed to sell compounded drugs as long as they satisfy additional criteria specified in the FDCA. Six states mirror federal law by making it illegal to sell any new drug without FDA approval and provide for suit under traditional state unfair-competition law if a party sells drugs in violation of these state laws.

Zyla and Wells Pharma are competitors. Zyla sells FDA-approved suppositories containing indomethacin, a drug used to treat various ailments such as rheumatoid arthritis. Wells Pharma sells compounded indomethacin suppositories that are not FDA approved, but Wells Pharma is a registered compounding facility and thus satisfies at least one provision of the exemption. Zyla, seeking to enjoin Wells Pharma from manufacturing and selling its compounded suppositories in the six states mirroring the FDCA, filed suit under those states’ unfair-competition laws. Wells Pharma moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), arguing that the state laws were preempted. After the district granted the motion, Zyla appealed.

The issue before the Fifth Circuit was whether the state laws conflict with the FDCA by incorporating it. As the Court explained, a state triggers implied “[o]bstacles-and-purposes preemption . . . when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Here, (quoting the California statute) the six state statutes at issue bar selling a “new drug” that has not been approved “under Section 505 of the [FDCA].” The Fifth Circuit, citing the 1949 Supreme Court decision in California v. Zook as controlling, concluded that where there is no conflict in statutory terms between the state and federal statutes, there is no preemption. Both a state and the federal government may regulate the same conduct – whether a state has provided an additional remedy in state law is irrelevant – and the FDCA itself permits states to regulate conduct related to drug safety and effectiveness concurrently with the federal government.

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting Wells Pharma’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case.



read more

Clear Vision: Keyword Search Term Purchase Doesn’t Blur Trademark Lines

by | Oct 17, 2024 |

Addressing the issue of trademark infringement based on the purchase of search advertising keywords, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined the consensus view and upheld a district court decision finding that the mere purchase of a search advertising keyword containing another’s trademark does not by itself constitute trademark infringement. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. JAND, Inc., Case No. 22-1634 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2024) (Chin, Carney, Lee, JJ.)

1-800 Contacts is an established online retailer for contact lenses. JAND (doing business as Warby Parker) was originally an online retailer for eyeglasses and began selling contact lenses online as well in 2019. As a newcomer to the market of online contact lenses, Warby Parker purchased search advertising keywords that included 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks. This practice is known as search keyword advertising, and it is a type of marketing that allows parties to purchase certain terms from search engines that, when used as a search query, result in the paying party’s advertisements appearing above the organic search results as part of the “paid results.”

1-800 Contacts sued Warby Parker for engaging in this practice, alleging that the purchase and use of 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal and New York state law. The district court disagreed, granting Warby Parker’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and finding that 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks and the “Warby Parker” trademark were entirely dissimilar. 1-800 Contacts appealed.

1-800 Contacts argued that Warby Parker purchased search engine keyworks consisting of 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks to use them in connection with an adverting campaign designed to mislead consumers. 1-800 Contacts alleged that the purchase of these keywords resulted in consumer confusion because users searching for “1-800 contacts” would receive Warby Parker’s “ambiguous ads that generate source, sponsorship or initial interest confusion.” 1-800 Contacts further alleged that the webpage that was linked to Warby Parker’s advertisements “magnified this confusion” because it mimicked the look and feel of 1-800 Contacts’ website.

The Second Circuit noted that two types of consumer confusion were at issue in the case: sponsorship confusion, which occurs when consumers believe “the mark’s owner sponsored or otherwise approved the use of the trademark,” and initial-interest confusion. To sufficiently plead internet-related initial-interest confusion, “a showing of intentional deception [is necessary] . . . because consumers diverted on the Internet can more readily get back on track that those in actual space.”

The Second Circuit reviewed the eight-factor Polaroid test to assess whether 1-800 Contacts sufficiently pled a likelihood of confusion. The Court agreed with the district court that certain factors, including the strength of the mark, the competitive proximity of the products, the relative quality of the products, and good faith, favored 1-800 Contacts. However, other factors, including, most importantly, the similarity of the marks, favored Warby Parker: “Here, the pleadings failed to plausibly allege that Warby Parker used 1-800’s Marks anywhere during the search advertising process outside of its purchase at the initial, permissible keyword auction. . . . Thus, the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Well-Pleaded Factual Allegations Must Be Taken as True When Considering Motion to Dismiss

by | Aug 29, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in dismissing a trademark infringement matter under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, ruled that a district court “erroneously assumed the veracity” of the defendants’ assertions over the “well-pleaded factual allegations” in the plaintiff’s complaint. Molzan v. Bellagreen Holdings, LLC, Case No. 23-20492 (5th Cir. Aug. 12, 2024) (Davis, Southwick, Duncan, JJ.)

In 2008, Houston-based chef Bruce Molzan and two partners began the first of what would become a group of five Ruggles Green restaurants. In 2016, as part of a sale of the restaurants, Molzan licensed his Ruggles Green trademarks to Bellagreen Holdings and related entities (collectively, Bellagreen) and transferred the rugglesgreen.com domain name to Bellagreen. Following the sale, Bellagreen changed the name of the restaurants from Ruggles Green to Bellagreen.

Molzan filed a complaint against Bellagreen alleging federal and state trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, trademark dilution, breach of a 2018 settlement agreement in which Bellagreen agreed to cease using the Ruggles Green trademark, and unjust enrichment. Molzan alleged that he had been unable to substantially reduce the internet association of the Bellagreen restaurants with him or his Ruggles Green trademark, even after a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceeding (a private, binding arbitration proceeding to resolve domain name disputes) ruled in Molzan’s favor. Although Bellagreen deleted references to Ruggles Green from its websites, the “knowledge panels” for Bellagreen continued to cause confusion in Google searches and Google Map searches for Ruggles, Ruggles Green, and Ruggles Black, even after Molzan requested that Google correct the information. Searches for Ruggles on Google Maps and other online maps as well as Houston First Corporation’s website resulted in results for Bellagreen restaurants, something Molzan alleged would have happened only with the approval and direction of Bellagreen.

The district court granted Bellagreen’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and denied Molzan leave to file a second amended complaint. In granting Bellagreen’s motion to dismiss, the district court determined that Molzan did not allege any facts explaining why Bellagreen would have a connection to any of the third-party websites or their users. Molzan appealed.

The Fifth Circuit, reviewing the district court’s judgment de novo by accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, reversed the dismissals of Molzan’s federal and state trademark infringement claims, Molzan’s federal and state false advertising and unfair competition claims, and state (but not federal) trademark dilution claim. Because Molzan’s unjust enrichment claim relied on his underlying trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, the Court reversed the dismissal of this claim as well. The Court vacated the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of additional defendants involved in the website design and internet promotion for Bellagreen because the district court erred in ruling on the merits of Molzan’s claims against them prior to ruling on personal jurisdiction. The Court also vacated the district court’s order denying Molzan leave to amend his complaint.

The Fifth Circuit [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Unfair Play: Unjust Enrichment for Copying and Using Non-Trade-Secret Spreadsheet

by | Nov 9, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim, finding that unjust enrichment claims do not necessarily rise or fall with trade secret misappropriation claims and may be advanced where there is a dispute as to whether a contract’s scope covers the parties’ disagreement. Pauwels v. Deloitte LLP, Case No. 22-21 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2023) (Sacks, Robinson, JJ.) (Jacobs, J., dissenting in part).

Andre Pauwels is a contractor who was retained without written agreement by The Bank of New York Mellon and its parent company (collectively, BNYM) to work on investment valuation. In 2014, while working for BNYM, Pauwels developed the “Pauwels Model” for valuation, which was implemented in Excel spreadsheets. Pauwels typically would send BNYM only the outputs from the Pauwels Model. According to Pauwels, the Pauwels Model and spreadsheets were confidential and proprietary, although the spreadsheets were not password-protected, encrypted or labeled confidential, and Pauwels sometimes shared the spreadsheets with BNYM.

In 2016, BNYM engaged Deloitte and related entities (collectively, Deloitte) to take over Pauwels’s duties. Pauwels never authorized BNYM to share the Pauwels Model spreadsheets with Deloitte, and BNYM assured Pauwels that Deloitte was not using those spreadsheets. In April 2018, Pauwels discovered that BNYM had given Deloitte the spreadsheets and that Deloitte had copied the Pauwels Model. BNYM terminated its relationship with Pauwels in May 2018.

In March 2019, Pauwels sued BNYM and Deloitte for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition and unjust enrichment and further alleged that BNYM committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. After BNYM and Deloitte moved to dismiss, the district court granted the motion in relevant part. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the trade secret misappropriation claim, citing the 2009 Second Circuit case Faiveley Transp. Malmo v. Wabtec for the proposition that “where an unfair competition claim, and a misappropriation claim arise from the same factual predicate . . . the two claims generally rise or fall together.” The district court dismissed the remainder of the claims for failure to plausibly allege the existence of trade secrets, that BNYM and Deloitte had “misappropriated” anything, or that Pauwels suffered damages. Pauwels appealed.

The Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of Pauwels’s unjust enrichment claim as to BNYM. Initially, the Court found that Pauwels’s unjust enrichment claim was not duplicative of his trade secret misappropriation claim, distinguishing Faiveley Transp. and explaining that misappropriation is not an element of unjust enrichment claims. The Court rejected BNYM’s argument that Pauwels’s unjust enrichment claim was precluded by the contract between the parties. The Court found that Pauwels could maintain his claim because there was “a bona fide dispute . . . whether the scope of an existing contract covers the disagreement between the parties.” According to Pauwels, he was engaged and paid for his advice and expertise only, meaning that BNYM had no right to benefit from the Pauwels Model spreadsheets by sharing them with Deloitte. According to BNYM, [...]

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

Watermelon Sugar: Candy Shape and Color Deemed Functional

by | Sep 21, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a district court’s decision that a candymaker cannot trademark the shape and colors of watermelon candy, finding that the combined colors and shape of the candy are functional because they help signal to consumers that the candies have a watermelon flavor. PIM Brands Inc. v. Haribo of America, Inc., Case No. 22-2821 (3rd Cir. Sept. 7, 2023) (Chagares, Bibas and Matey, JJ)

PIM is a leading confectionary company that introduced its Sour Jacks Wedges, a chewy gummy candy, in the early 2000s.

PIM obtained a federal trademark registration in “the shape of a wedge for candy, with an upper green section with white speckles, followed by a narrow middle white section and followed by a lower red section with white speckles.”

Haribo, a well-known German confectionery company, introduced its own watermelon-flavored sweet treat in 2019. Like the Sour Jacks Wedges, Haribo’s candy is red, white and green, with an elongated watermelon wedge shape. PIM sued Haribo for trademark and trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act and for unfair competition under New Jersey common law, alleging that Haribo copied PIM’s Sour Jacks Wedges design.

Haribo countered that PIM’s trade dress was functional and requested that the district court cancel PIM’s trademark. Haribo claimed that it designed its chewy candy’s shape and colors to match its flavor (watermelon) and that PIM’s trademark should not have been granted since it closely resembled an actual slice of watermelon. The district court agreed, finding that PIM’s trademark design was functional and not protectable since PIM’s combination of colors and shape helps identify the candy’s watermelon flavor. PIM appealed.

PIM acknowledged that the coloring of its watermelon candy was functional since it identified the candy’s flavor. However, PIM argued that the candy’s wedge shape identified the brand and challenged the district court’s decision because it did not consider the wedge shape in isolation from the colors when assessing functionality.

The Third Circuit rejected PIM’s argument, concluding that each feature of the candy’s trade dress serves a single function, which is to identify its flavor, and therefore is ineligible for trademark protection. The Court explained that a design is functional if it is useful for anything beyond branding. The Court cited to its 2021 decision in Ezaki Glico v. Lotte International America, explaining that “[e]ven if the design chosen both promotes a brand and also ‘makes a product work better,’ it is functional and unprotectable.” The Court went on to explain that if design choices (e.g., shape and color) serve the same function (e.g., identifying the flavor), they should be considered together.

PIM further argued that its Sour Jacks Wedges do not match exactly with watermelon, noting that the bottom could be more curved and have a thinner band of darker green, the wedge could be wider, the point could be sharper and a deeper red, and there could be black seeds. The [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Back to the Future: Prior Third-Party Settlement Doesn’t Impact Future Trademark Licensees

by | Sep 7, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that under certain circumstances a trademark licensee can bring a claim against a third party for unfair competition under the Lanham Act even if the licensing agreement does not expressly authorize it to do so. Overhead Door Company of Kansas City v. OGD Equipment Company, LLC, Case No. 22-10985 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2023) (Branch, Brasher, JJ.; Winsor, Dist. J., sitting by designation).

This appeal involved three parties: D.H. Pace Company, Overhead Door Corporation and Overhead Garage Door (OGD). All three companies are involved in selling and servicing garage doors. Pace is a licensee of Overhead. Under its license, Pace is permitted to advertise and promote the trade name OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY. OGD is a competitor of Overhead and Pace. Prior to the current appeal, Overhead and OGD had been involved in litigation involving OGD’s alleged trademark infringement and unfair trade practices, which resulted in a settlement. As a part of the settlement, OGD and Overhead could not bring suits against each other. However, the settlement terms were not expressly binding on any current or future licensees of Overhead.

In the current litigation, Pace filed suit against OGD for unfair competition in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices and various state trademark infringement violations. Pace alleged that OGD was leading consumers to believe that it was the same company as, or was affiliated with, Overhead (Pace’s licensor). In response, OGD moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The district court ruled that the licensing agreement between Pace and Overhead was a contractual bar to relief because the agreement did not affirmatively give Pace the right to sue. The district court also ruled that as a non-exclusive licensee, Pace lacked standing to bring its suit. The district court held that because Pace’s trademark rights were derived from a licensing agreement with Overhead, by discharging rights in the prior settlement with OGD, Overhead also discharged Pace’s right to sue.

Through a de novo review, the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Pace. As the district court recognized, under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, parties other than the owner of the mark can bring suit, but here the district court barred Pace’s claims based on the licensing agreement, Pace’s status as a non-exclusive licensee and the settlement agreement between OGD and Overhead. In reversing, the Eleventh Circuit held that none of these reasons was sufficient to bar Pace’s claims.

According to the Eleventh Circuit, the licensing agreement did not bar Pace from suing since there were no contractual term imposing a bar. While a licensee’s right to sue can be restricted, there was nothing in the licensing agreement at issue that limited Pace’s right to sue. The license agreement did not address trademark enforcement or either party’s ability to sue.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that the district court misread the Eleventh Circuit’s 2019 decision in Kroma Makeup v. Boldface [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Personal Jurisdiction? Selling Products via Interactive Website Will Do It

by and | Jul 13, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, deciding that the sale of a product via an interactive website provides sufficient “minimum contacts” to support jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a state where the defendant causes the product to be delivered. Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., Case No. 21-17001 (9th Cir. July 5, 2023) (Graber, Clifton, Christen, JJ.)

Herbal Brands sells health, wellness, fitness and nutrition products directly to consumers and through authorized third-party retailers in Arizona. Photoplaza sold Herbal Brands products through two e-commerce storefronts without Herbal Brands’ permission. Herbal Brands sent three cease-and-desist letters, stating that Photoplaza’s sales harmed Herbal Brands in Arizona. Herbal Brands accused Photoplaza of trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, false advertising under the Lanham Act and tortious interference with contracts and business relationships under Arizona law. The district court granted Photoplaza’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Herbal Brands appealed.

The Ninth Circuit noted that Photoplaza failed to submit any evidence to contradict the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint. The Court found that under its three-part test, Photoplaza had sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona to warrant personal jurisdiction:

  1. Photoplaza purposefully directed its activities at the forum.
  2. Herbal Brands’ harm arose out of Photoplaza’s contacts with Arizona.
  3. Exercise of jurisdiction over Photoplaza would be reasonable.

The second and third prongs of the Ninth Circuit’s test were easily resolved. Herbal Brands’ claimed harm rose out of and related to Photoplaza’s conduct of selling the products to Arizona residents. The Court referred to its 2004 holding in Schwarzenegger regarding a plaintiff’s burden to establish jurisdiction, whereupon the burden shifts to the defendants under the seven-factor balancing test of Freestream Aircraft (2018). The Court found that Photoplaza did not meet its burden to present a compelling case that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

The bulk of the Ninth Circuit’s decision focused on the first prong (purposeful availment), which applies when “a case sounds in tort,” such as claims of trademark infringement, false advertising and tortious interference with business relationships, each of which requires an intentional tortious or “tort-like” act. Referring to the effects test from the 1984 Supreme Court decision in Calder v. Jones, the Ninth Circuit explained that Photoplaza purposefully directed its activities toward the forum if it (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that Photoplaza knew was likely to be suffered in the forum state. Related to the Calder test’s first and third prongs, Photoplaza’s product sales to Arizona residents were intentional acts, and the cease-and-desist letters informed Photoplaza that its actions caused harm in Arizona.

Regarding the “express aiming” prong, the Ninth Circuit explained that when a website itself is the only jurisdictional contact, the analysis turns on whether the site had a forum-specific focus or whether the defendant exhibited an intent to cultivate an audience in the forum. The Court explained that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

On the Border of Art and Trademark: First Amendment Trumps the Lanham Act

by | Dec 8, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit weighed trademark rights against free speech considerations and found that the First Amendment protected use of an artistic work that was not deliberately misleading. MGFB Properties Inc. et al. v. 495 Productions Holdings LLC et al., Case No. 21-13458 (11th Cir. Nov. 29, 2022) (Luck, Brasher, Hull, JJ.) (Brasher, J., concurring).

The suit was brought by MGFB Properties, Flora-Bama Management and Flora-Bama Old S.A.L.T.S. (collectively, the plaintiffs). The plaintiffs own and operate the Flora-Bama Lounge, Package and Oyster Bar on the Florida-Alabama border. The lounge has been in business since 1964 and is well known in the region. The plaintiffs registered their trademark FLORA-BAMA in 2013.

Viacom and 495 Productions (collectively, the defendants) produce reality television series, such as the hit 2009 series Jersey Shore. In light of Jersey Shore’s success, the defendants produced several spinoffs. In 2016 the defendants decided to develop a new spinoff based on “southern beach culture” and chose the term “Floribama” to describe “relaxing Florida beaches with the down-home Southern vibe of Alabama.” The defendants were aware of the name’s connection to the Florabama Lounge but used the term regardless to identify a specific stretch of the Gulf Coast (the Florida and Alabama coasts) and inserted dialogue into the show to explain the term. The show’s logo emphasized its connection to the Jersey Shore franchise:

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ use of “Floribama” was a violation of the Lanham Act and caused unfair confusion and damage to their brand. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s judgment that the defendants’ First Amendment rights as the creators of an artistic work outweighed the plaintiffs’ interest in their trademark and in avoiding confusion around their brand: “[c]reative works of artistic expression are firmly ensconced within the protections of the First Amendment.” In reaching its outcome, the Court applied the 1989 Rogers v. Grimaldi test.

Under the first prong of the Rogers test, “an artistically expressive use of a trademark will not violate the Lanham Act unless the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever.” Here, the Eleventh Circuit found that the defendants’ use of the term “Floribama” to describe the geographic area featured in Floribama Shore and the subculture of that region satisfied the first element of the Rogers test. The Court held that it was sufficient for the defendants’ use of “Floribama” to be relevant to their show, even if the term was not “necessary” to production of the show.

Under the second prong of the Rogers test, the Eleventh Circuit found that the defendants’ use of “Floribama” was not explicitly misleading “as to the source or content of the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Tableware Designer Gets Heavenly Results on Its Pearly Plates

by | Jul 21, 2022 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court decision, reversing the dismissal of a copyright claim based on lack of standing and finding ownership of the copyright in the claimant based on an assignment of that claim. The Fifth Circuit also found that the plaintiff had a protectible trade dress under the Lanham Act based on secondary meaning. Beatriz Ball, LLC v. Barbagallo Co., LLC, Case No. 21-30029 (5th Cir. July 12, 2022) (Jones, Haynes, Costa, JJ.) (per curiam).

Beatriz Ball, the founder of Beatriz Ball, LLC, alleged that Pampa Bay was marketing and distributing products that infringed on Ms. Ball’s registered copyrights and unregistered trade dress for its “Organic Pearl” line of tableware. Ms. Ball brought suit against Pampa Bay in Louisiana federal court, asserting claims for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act and unfair competition under § 43 of the Lanham Act.

Pampa Bay has marketed and distributed products similar to the Organic Pearl collection but made with cheaper materials since 2016. Ms. Ball alleged that Pampa Bay infringed upon her copyright and its unregistered trade dress because the products are confusingly similar and look and feel like the Organic Pearl trade dress in every way. The district court ruled against Ms. Ball, finding that it had not established that its unregistered trade dress acquired “secondary meaning” as is required for protection of an unregistered trade dress under the Lanham Act. The district court further held that Ms. Ball lacked standing to bring the copyright claims as a result of a lack of legal interest because when “Beatriz Ball Collection” transferred ownership in the copyrights to “Beatriz Ball, LLC,” the language of the assignment did not specifically transfer the right to a cause of action for prior infringements predating the assignment. The assignment clause in issue read:

Assignment. Assignor [Beatriz Ball and Beatriz Ball Collection] hereby irrevocably conveys, transfers, and assigns to Assignee [Beatriz Ball, LLC], and Assignee hereby accepts, all of Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to any and all copyrights, whether registered or not and whether or not applications have been filed with the United States Copyright Office or any other governmental body. This assignment expressly includes any and all rights associated with those copyrights.

The district court found that because the assignment did not specifically transfer the assignor’s right to causes of action for prior infringements, the LLC lacked standing to challenge infringements pre-dating the assignment. The district court therefore never reached the merits of the copyright claim.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit first reviewed the standing issue to determine if the LLC owned the copyrights at the time of the alleged infringement or if the right to vindicate prior infringements had been effectively assigned to Ms. Ball. Reversing the district court’s ruling, the Court concluded that the LLC had standing to bring the suit as the actual copyright holder. The Court reasoned that § 411(b)(1), which provides that a registration with “inaccurate information” can support an infringement action [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES