Trademarks Archives

Trademarks

Trade Dress Requires Separate Articulation and Distinctiveness Requirements

by Ashley K. Justice | Feb 20, 2025 | Trademarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

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

by Eleanor B. Atkins | Feb 6, 2025 | Trademarks

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Rules Are Rules, Especially in Trademark Proceedings

by Abigail A. Rubinstein | Feb 6, 2025 | Trademarks

The Commissioner for Trademarks recently issued a precedential decision terminating a reexamination proceeding for the registrant’s failure to respond within a statutory time period, where there was insufficient justification to waive the response requirement. In re Trigroup USA LLC, Reg. No. 7094794 (Jan. 24, 2025) (Gooder, Comm’r for Trademarks)

The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA) created two new trademark proceedings: expungement and reexamination. The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) began accepting petitions for these proceedings in 2021. The reexamination proceeding must be filed within the first five years after the registration of a trademark and can only be filed against applications filed on the basis of use (§ 1(a)) or intent to use (§ 1(b)). The proceeding questions whether the mark was in use by a certain date:

In the case of a use-based application, the mark must have been in use on all the goods or services identified in the application by the filing date of the application.
In the case of an intent-to-use application, the mark must have been in use on all the goods or services identified in the application by either the date the Allegation of Use was filed or the deadline for filing the Statement of Use.

A party filing for reexamination must submit evidence that the mark was not in use by those relevant dates.

When the PTO institutes a reexamination proceeding, it issues an Office Action providing the registrant with the opportunity to rebut the claims of non-use. The rules require a response within three months of the Office Action issue date, and failure to respond results in the cancellation of the registration.

Here, the registrant did not respond to the Office Action, and the PTO cancelled the registration. The registrant then filed a Petition to the Director requesting reinstatement of the registration. Such a petition is required to include a response to the original Office Action. However, in this case, the registrant did not provide such a response, and on that basis the Commissioner found that the Petition should not be granted.

The Commissioner further found that even if the petition had included a complete response, it did not set forth sufficient facts to justify a late response. Trademark Rule 2.146(a)(5) permits the Director to waive any requirement of the rules that is not mandated by statute only “in an extraordinary situation, when justice requires, and no other party is injured.” 37 C.F.R. § 2.146(a)(5).

The registrant explained that it had an ongoing matter in China and the failure to respond was due to inadvertent error because it was dealing with the Chinese matter. The Commissioner found that this was not an extraordinary circumstance. The registrant also explained that cancellation of the registration would hinder its ongoing efforts in China and prevent it from manufacturing its products there. The Commissioner found that justice did not require the waiver of the PTO rules just because there would be harm to the registrant: “a party cannot be excused from the [...]

Continue Reading

Beach Buggy Battle: Stipulation Insufficient to Establish Trademark Distinctiveness

by Tim Dunker | Jan 30, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that a district court does not need to accept both parties’ stipulation that a mark is distinctive but instead is permitted to make an evidentiary inquiry in determining whether the mark is distinctive or generic. Moke America LLC v. Moke Int’l Ltd., Case No. 23-1634 (4th Cir. Jan. 15, 2025) (King, Groh, JJ.) (Richardson, J., dissenting).

Starting in the 1960s, British Motor Corporation (BMC) sold vehicles colloquially referred to as “Mokes” in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Portugal. By the time BMC ceased production in 1993, Mokes had garnered a small but devoted following for use as beach buggies in the United States, the Caribbean, and Australia.

In August 2015, Moke International and Moke USA sold their first vehicle using the MOKE mark and subsequently sought trademark registration. One year later, Moke America began US sales of vehicles using the MOKE mark. Both parties described their vehicles as being reengineered and redesigned versions of the BMC Moke.

The present dispute began when Moke America opposed Moke International and Moke USA’s registration based on priority use of the MOKE mark. The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board dismissed the opposition. Moke America then filed a district court complaint seeking a declaration of trademark ownership and asserting trademark infringement. Moke International and Moke USA counterclaimed for a declaration of trademark ownership and trademark infringement, as well as affirmance of the Board’s dismissal.

A party claiming ownership of a mark bears the burden of proving distinctiveness. A generic term is not distinctive. Generic terms in trademark law are those that describe a genus or class of which a particular product is a member, such as “CONVENIENT STORE retail stores, DRY ICE solid carbon dioxide, and LIGHT BEER ale-type beverages.” Generic terms can never be protected. The purpose of denying protection for these terms is to safeguard the public from having commonly used words and phrases removed from the “linguistic commons.” Certain marks that are originally distinctive may become generic through the public’s pervasive use of the term through a process known as “genericide.” Genericide occurs when the trademark ceases to identify the particular source of a product or service to the public and instead identifies a class of product or service. Common examples include ASPIRIN and ESCALATOR.

Since both parties sought ownership of the MOKE mark, the parties stipulated that the mark was distinctive and not generic. The district court found that a stipulation was insufficient and noted that the parties must set forth evidence that the mark was distinctive and not generic. The district court concluded that MOKE was once inherently distinctive but had become generic before either party sold a vehicle bearing the MOKE mark. Both parties appealed.

Seeking to overturn the district court’s finding of genericness, the parties argued that the district court was required to accept their stipulation of the MOKE mark’s distinctiveness. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that blindly accepting a stipulation was incompatible with the court’s role of [...]

Continue Reading

Lager Than Life: $56 Million Verdict in Beer Trademark Dispute Still on Tap

by Amol Parikh | Jan 16, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a $56 million trial verdict in a trademark dispute, finding that the evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that a beer company’s rebranding of one its beers infringed a competitor’s trademark. Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC, Case No. 23-3142 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024) (Graber, Friedland, Bumatay, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Stone Brewing sued Molson Coors in 2018 alleging that Molson changed its packaging of Keystone Light to emphasize the word “stone” in its “Own the Stone” marketing campaign, and that this change infringed Stone Brewing’s trademarks and caused consumer confusion. Molson raised a variety of defenses, all of which were rejected. A jury found infringement and ultimately awarded Stone Brewing $56 million. Molson appealed.

Molson argued that the district court erred in finding that the four-year laches clock did not bar Stone Brewing’s Lanham Act claims. The Ninth Circuit found that the laches clock began running in 2017 when Molson launched the “Own the Stone” campaign, to which all of Stone Brewing’s claims related. The Court noted that prior to 2017, Molson never referred to Keystone as anything other than Keystone in its packaging, marketing, or advertising materials, and specifically never broke up the product name “Keystone” and used the term “Stones” to refer to the number of beers in a case (“30 stones”) or as a catch phrase (e.g., “Hold my Stones”). Thus, the Court found that Stone Brewing brought the suit within the four-year statute of limitations period.

Molson also argued that the district court erred in refusing to set aside the jury verdict on the ground that Molson had a superior interest in the STONE mark. Stone Brewing applied to register the STONE mark in 1996, and the Ninth Circuit found there was substantial evidence that Molson did not approve production of packaging that used “Stone” before that date.

Molson argued that the district court erred in refusing to set aside the jury verdict on likelihood of confusion. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, explaining that Stone Brewing provided evidence from which a jury could plausibly conclude there was “actual confusion” by distributors and customers who thought that Stone Brewing sold Keystone Light. The Court noted that Molson expressly de-emphasized “Keystone” and instead highlighted “Stone” in its 2017 product refresh. The Court also explained that both brands compete in the same beer space, use the same marketing and distribution channels, and are relatively inexpensive products, all of which allowed the jury to plausibly conclude that Molson’s 2017 product refresh of Keystone Light was likely to cause consumer confusion.

Molson also challenged the damages award. At trial, Stone Brewing sought damages in three categories:

$32.7 million for past lost profits
$141.4 million for future lost profits
$41.8 million for corrective advertising.

The jury returned a verdict of $56 million in general damages, which was about one quarter of the requested damages, but did not indicate what amount came from each category. Molson argued that [...]

Continue Reading

Pink Is Not the New Black: See Functionality Doctrine

by Hannah Hurley | Jan 16, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision canceling trademarks for the color pink for ceramic hip components, stating that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the color pink as used in the ceramic components was functional. CeramTec GmbH v. CoorsTek Bioceramics LLC, Case No. 23-1502 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2025) (Lourie, Taranto, Stark, JJ.)

Trademarks cannot be functional. The functionality doctrine prevents the registration of useful product features as trademarks. As explained by the Supreme Court (1995) in Qualitex v. Jacobson Prods.:

The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm’s reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 173, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product’s functional features could be used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity).

CeramTec manufactures ceramic hip components made from zirconia-toughened alumina (ZTA) ceramic containing chromium oxide (chromia). The addition of chromia gives the ceramic a characteristic pink color. CeramTec obtained trademarks for the pink color as used in these components. CoorsTek Bioceramics, a competitor, challenged the trademarks, arguing that the pink color of the ceramic was functional. The Board agreed, finding that the pink color was functional because it resulted from the addition of chromia, which provided material benefits to the ceramic, such as increased hardness. CeramTec appealed.

The Federal Circuit applied the four-factor Morton-Norwich (CCPA 1982) test to determine functionality:

Existence of a utility patent
Advertising materials
Availability of functionally equivalent designs
Comparatively simple or cheap manufacture.

The Federal Circuit found the first and second Morton-Norwich prongs were strongly in CoorsTek’s favor, as CeramTec held multiple patents that disclosed the functional benefits of chromia, such as toughness, hardness, and stability of the ZTA ceramic. Similarly, the Court found that CeramTec had multiple advertising materials that promoted its product’s functional advantages.

The Federal Circuit found that there was no evidence of alternative designs that were functionally equivalent to the pink ZTA ceramic, rendering the third factor neutral. The Court also found the fourth factor neutral because there was conflicting evidence regarding whether chromia reduced manufacturing costs.

Finally, CeramTec argued that CoorsTek should be precluded from challenging the trademarks based on the doctrine of unclean hands. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the Board spoke too strongly in suggesting that the unclean hands defense is categorically unavailable in functionality proceedings but found any error to be harmless. The Court confirmed that the Board had adequately considered the defense and found it inapplicable in this case.

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

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Jan 16, 2025 | Trademarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Closed: OpenAI Prevails on Secondary Meaning

by Hannah Hurley | Dec 5, 2024 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction (PI) in a trademark action under the Lanham Act, stating that the district court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous based on its finding that the plaintiff had likely acquired secondary meaning in the mark. OpenAI, Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc., Guy Ravine, Case No. 24-1963 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2024) (Thomas, Owens, Collins, JJ.) (per curiam) (Collins, J., dissenting) (nonprecedential).

OpenAI is the founder of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence tools. OpenAI has used the OPENAI (no space) mark extensively in association with its goods, services, website, social media, and marketing. OpenAI first attempted to register the mark with the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) in 2016, but the PTO rejected the mark as being merely descriptive and potentially confusing with Guy Ravine’s prior-filed application for the mark OPEN AI (with a space). Ravine claimed to have used the mark as early as 2015, which would have predated OpenAI’s use of its mark. However, the PTO also rejected Ravine’s application for registration on the Principal Register under a similar rationale, and the OPEN AI mark was only accepted for registration on the Supplemental Register in 2017. Neither mark is registered on the Principal Register.

OpenAI filed a trademark action under the Lanham Act against Ravine’s company, Open Artificial Intelligence, and sought a PI, which the district court granted after finding that OpenAI had established that it had acquired distinctiveness in the mark. Ravine appealed the denial of Open Artificial Intelligence’s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) to amend or vacate that injunction.

A PI is granted when a plaintiff establishes that:

It is likely to succeed on the merits.
It is likely to suffer irreparable harm.
The balance of equities tips in its favor.
An injunction is in the public interest.

The Ninth Circuit applies a sliding scale approach, where a stronger showing of one factor could offset a weaker showing of another factor. To succeed on a trademark infringement claim, a plaintiff must show that it has a protectible ownership interest in the mark and that the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause consumer confusion.

To evaluate the claims, the district court looked at each of the parties’ history and use of the disputed marks. The district court noted that OpenAI had used its mark in connection with its most widely used product, ChatGPT, resulting in the mark becoming a household name. The district court recognized that OpenAI’s trademark was one of the most recognized in artificial intelligence (AI) history. The district court noted that OpenAI’s website was one of the most visited websites, with almost 100 million monthly active users. In contrast, the district court found that Ravine had not established that he had used the mark in commerce prior to OpenAI’s use and even took issue with Ravine’s representations regarding his use of the mark. The district court granted [...]

Continue Reading

Battle of the Bay: It’s Oakland Airport, Not San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Dec 5, 2024 | Trademarks

The US District Court for the Northern District of California granted the city and county of San Francisco a preliminary injunction enjoining the Port of Oakland from using the name or trademark “San Francisco Bay Oakland Airport” based on the strength of San Francisco’s mark and the proximity of goods and services. City and County of San Francisco v. City of Oakland, Case No. 3:24-cv-02311-TSH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2024) (Hixson, J.)

The city and county of San Francisco own a registered trademark for the SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT covering airport services. The Port of Oakland owns the OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT mark, also covering airport services. Based on a research study, the Port of Oakland contended that there was a lack of awareness among tourists visiting the San Francisco Bay Area, commonly known as the Bay Area, that Oakland is located in the Bay Area. The Port of Oakland notified San Francisco of its intent to rename its airport the San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport. San Francisco objected to the name change as confusingly similar to its trademark. San Francisco sued Oakland and the Port of Oakland for trademark infringement, unfair competition/false designation of origin, and common law trademark infringement. San Francisco also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (PI) to prevent the Port of Oakland from using the name.

Ruling on the PI motion, the district court started with whether the Port’s use of “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport” was likely to cause confusion. Courts in the Ninth Circuit evaluate likelihood of confusion using the nonexhaustive Sleekcraft factors (9th Cir. 1979), which include the following:

Strength of the mark.
Proximity of the goods.
Similarity of the marks.
Evidence of actual confusion.
Marketing channels used.
Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser.
Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark.
Likelihood of expansion of the product lines.

San Francisco offered several theories supporting likelihood of confusion. San Francisco argued that the new name implied an affiliation, connection, or association between the Oakland airport (OAK) and the San Francisco airport (SFO). San Francisco also argued that the new name would cause customers to confuse OAK with SFO and cause customers to buy tickets to the wrong airport, which constituted point-of-sale and initial interest confusion.

Addressing the strength of the mark, the district court determined that although San Francisco’s trademark was descriptive, it was commercially strong. The SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT is widely known among travelers and appears on signs in and around the airport. San Francisco has used its trademark for decades and invests millions of dollars annually to promote the SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT trademark. The court found that San Francisco’s brand was routinely ranked among the top 25 airport brands.

In terms of the proximity of the goods, the district court found that the services were identical, as both names were used in connection with an airport and related services.

Turning to the similarity of the marks, the [...]

Continue Reading

Ghostly Misstep: No Confusion Means No Preliminary Injunction

by Sarah Mezini | Dec 5, 2024 | Trademarks

In a trademark case involving an incontestable registration, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court ruling denying the registrant a preliminary injunction (PI) for failure to establish likelihood of confusion. US Ghost Adventures, LLC v. Miss Lizzie’s Coffee LLC, Case No. 23-2000 (1st Cir. Nov. 15, 2024) (Selya, Barron, Gelpí, JJ.)

In 1892, prosecutors alleged that Lizzie Borden hacked her parents to death in their family home. Borden was acquitted of all charges, leaving the murder unsolved. This mystery made Borden’s ancestral home a travel destination for all intrigued by the legend.

US Ghost Adventures owns a bed and breakfast located at the Lizzie Borden House in Fall River, Massachusetts. Ghost Adventures also owns an incontestable federal trademark on the LIZZIE BORDEN name as used in its services and on its hatchet logo displaying a notched blade.

Miss Lizzie’s Coffee opened a coffee shop next door to the Lizzie Borden House, displaying storefront signage with the words “Miss Lizzie’s Coffee” between a cup of coffee and a stylized hatchet spewing blood. The store also displayed a second sign claiming Miss Lizzie’s as “The Most Haunted Coffee Shop in the World,” with a similar hatchet containing a handle and dramatic blood splatters. Since the opening of Miss Lizzie’s, there has been confusion regarding its affiliation with the Lizzie Borden House.

Ghost Adventures brought a trademark infringement and unfair competition suit against Miss Lizzie’s Coffee in federal district court. Ghost Adventures also moved for a temporary restraining order and/or PI seeking to enjoin Miss Lizzie’s use of either the LIZZIE BORDEN trademark or the hatchet logo in the coffee shop’s trade names, trade dress, and marketing materials.

The district court applied the customary four-part test for PIs. The test typically emphasizes likelihood of success on the merits because if the movant cannot show a likelihood of success, the rest of the factors “become matters of idle curiosity.” The district court determined that Ghost Adventures failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and denied the PI. Ghost Adventures appealed.

The First Circuit reviewed the district court’s finding for clear error and affirmed. The First Circuit agreed with the district court’s assertion that Miss Lizzie’s displays were neither “the trademarked hatchet nor a colorable imitation” of Ghost Adventures’ hatchet display. Further, the Court found that the Miss Lizzie’s mark was not associated with Ghost Adventures’ mark, but rather with the historical story of Lizzie Borden. The Court agreed that both businesses sold different goods to different customers. Similarly, the Court concluded that any consumer confusion was not due to the similarity of their marks but was due to non-trademarked similarities between the businesses: their proximity to one another, the use of Lizzie Borden lore, and customers’ perception of nearby cafés in association with the historical site itself. Ghost Adventures’ mark could not prevent other businesses from using the Lizzie Borden story or from conducting business near the Lizzie Borden House. Moreover, the First Circuit agreed [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS